Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Local Film Festivals

Janet Anderson: What funding is available for local film festivals in 2007-08.

Andy Burnham: Film festivals are an important part of building an audience for film throughout the UK, and more than £1.6 million has already been spent on local film festivals in 2007-08. In addition, the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), announced in November that the UK Film Council would make a further £4.5 million available for national film festivals and regional festivals with national significance.

Janet Anderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I congratulate him on taking up his new post: we wish him well. I urge him to look at the website www.bacupfilmfestival.co.uk, to see for himself the success of the first Bacup film festival of last year. We want to build on that and expand the festival this year, in order to enhance the cultural life of the Rossendale valley. May I urge him to look at the funding for such small film festivals? I hope that he will be able to assist us.

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It seems like only yesterday that we were discussing film policy together in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I knew my luck was in when I saw that she had the first question today, because I could not think of a friendlier face to give me a gentler introduction to my new post.
	I saw first-hand my hon. Friend's work in setting up the Film Council, and she should take great pride in the British film industry's success since the time she was a DCMS Minister. She is now doing the same for Bacup. I wish her well in that role, and I will certainly want to visit—I have been told that my new job is good for getting the hottest tickets, and I cannot think of better tickets than a couple on the front row at the Bacup film festival this year.

Adrian Sanders: I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. There are plans for a film festival in my constituency, and I hope that there will be enough funding to go round. May I emphasise that it is essential that funding in the creative industries, particularly film, goes to the regions, especially as ITV is currently pulling back from regional news and investment? Therefore, any extra money that goes into film and television in the regions is important.

Andy Burnham: I entirely agree. As I mentioned in my previous answer, we have made money available over three years to support film festivals in all parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that last year's summer of British film, where funding was made available to support the use of digital screens, was another great success. In a changing broadcasting world, where there is lots of global content, regional and local programming is increasingly important to people in the UK.

Sport (Girls)

Lorely Burt: What progress has been made on increasing the number of girls participating in sport.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The annual school sport survey shows that, although the disparity in participation in sport between girls' schools and boys' schools is narrowing, there remains a need to reduce the gap further. Key to achieving that is to provide further sporting opportunities that respond better to girls' needs and abilities. That is why we are investing an additional £100 million to offer physical education and sport to all pupils aged from five to 16, and three hours for those aged 16 to 19.

Lorely Burt: I welcome the progress the Minister is making in this area, but does he not share my concern that 1 million children still do not participate in two hours of sport a week? The Government's own most recent figures show that they are failing to meet targets to increase the number of women participating in sport. Will the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to ensure that activities that young girls want to participate in, such as dance, where demand outstrips supply—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I cannot see how 86 per cent. can be a failure, so we are clearly doing very well on school participation, but we want to do more, especially with girls. We must be careful that girls are not stereotyped by participating in certain sports: instead, we have to broaden the offer. We are doing that by, for instance, working with the Youth Sport Trust, and looking at whether we can introduce dance and creativity. I wonder whether the hon. Lady saw the news today that Kelly Holmes is looking at steps such as the wearing of loose-fitting clothes as opposed to tight PE skirts, to make people feel better about themselves and get more involved in sport.

Barbara Keeley: I join other Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new role; he is a great choice for the job. On the issue of girls' and women's participation in sport, it is understood that there is a bias in national funding, from the top to the bottom, in favour of sports played by men and boys, and that needs to be looked into. Members of the national women's football team do not even receive salaries; they have to do other jobs. That is not an encouragement to girls. Will the new Secretary of State make it a priority to address that imbalance in funding from the top right down to the grass roots, which are so important?

Gerry Sutcliffe: This is an important point. We have been trying to ensure that the fastest increase is among girls playing football, and to ensure, through the Football Association, that we have an elite league and investment in women's football. As I said earlier, through the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation, we are trying to ensure that we stop any imbalance and promote opportunities for girls and women. A dance review is taking place, so the future looks good, but we must ensure that we get to those hard-to-reach groups.

Humfrey Malins: Will the Minister agree to meet his Home Office colleagues to discuss the need to increase participation in sport of girls and boys in our young offender prison estate, where the provision of sport for young people is still far too low?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I heartily agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He will know that one of my previous roles was in the Home Office, dealing with young offenders. The busiest place in a young offender institution—and, indeed, a prison—is the gym, and we must try to channel that activity into sport. I believe that there is a great role for sport to play in helping support offenders and in getting them away from offending.

Chris Bryant: There is only one sport in which girls and boys participate equally in England and Wales—swimming. However, Paris has more 50 m swimming pools than England and Wales put together. That is partly because it is very expensive for local authorities to build and maintain swimming pools. Will the Government consider building more 50 m pools and making sure that funding comes from central Government, rather than local government?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I think that my hon. Friend has been speaking to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about 50 m pools. We clearly need to see investment in sports infrastructure, and we are proud of our record over the past 10 years. It is important that local authorities play their part. We want them to have facility strategies, so that they can work out what is required in their areas. We hope that the sports partnerships can help them to build more pools, if that is what is required.

Hugh Robertson: May I start by welcoming the new Secretary of State to his post? The two greatest barriers to increasing female participation in sport are a reluctance among girls to take part in the conventional school sport offer, and an appalling post-school drop-out rate. Given the Government's reorganisation of Sport England, will the Minister be absolutely clear about whether the responsibility for increasing the number of girls doing dance, yoga and the like lies with Sport England, or has been transferred to the Department of Health?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Increasing participation is a target across government, but what is important is that we make sure that all Government Departments can contribute. On participation, we are working very closely with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and with the Department of Health to make sure that there are no gaps for people to fall through. However, the question of where the responsibility will lie depends on the outcome of the Sport England review, which we hope will take place toward the end of February. The review will doubtless make sure that we do not let girls and hard-to-target groups fall through such gaps.

Commonwealth Games (Glasgow)

Ann McKechin: What progress has been made in his Department's work with the organising company and the Scottish Executive on providing support for the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow.

Gerry Sutcliffe: We are committed to working with the organising company and all the key partners to ensure a successful Commonwealth games in Glasgow that can be enjoyed by the whole of the UK.

Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I hope that he will take the opportunity to visit Glasgow in the near future, and to see the benefits of the new facility provided by Glasgow city council. However, does he agree that the somewhat churlish attitude adopted by the nationalists in opposing the Olympics is counter-productive? The interest in sport that will be generated by the Olympics, and the knowledge and experience that we will gain from it, will be of direct benefit to Glasgow and to the games.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I note that not many Scottish Nationalists are in their seats this afternoon to talk about this important sporting issue. As the UK Minister with responsibility for sport, I am concerned that we have the unified voice that we need in promoting sport. The Commonwealth games will benefit the whole of the UK, and UK Sport contributes to the success of athletes, particularly Scottish athletes. We must make sure that there is no narrow nationalist line affecting sport's ability to unite all our nations.

Mark Field: As a London Member, may I welcome Glasgow's getting the Commonwealth games, which is every bit as much a national games as the Olympics in 2012? However, what plans are afoot to ensure that there is a specific national lottery game for the Glasgow Commonwealth games before 2012, as well as in the two-year period up to Commonwealth games?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The commissioning of new games is a matter for the National Lottery Commission. If such a game is needed, I am sure that discussions will be held about that. Clearly, we will want to work with the organising company when it is set up—it is in its early stages—and these are the sorts of issues that we will discuss.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus on the 2012 Olympics means there is a challenge in promoting the 2014 Glasgow games throughout the UK? Will he hold early discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government to promote across Wales the excellent prospect of a Commonwealth games in Glasgow?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I would be happy to do that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on all things sporting, not least his prowess on the football pitch for the parliamentary football team. He makes an important point. I shall have regular meetings with the Welsh sports Minister and the Scottish Executive sports Minister to ensure that we co-ordinate our response to the benefit of both the Olympic and Commonwealth games.

Michael Fabricant: Members on both sides of the House have rightly emphasised the importance of the legacy of the Olympic games. Will there be a legacy of the Commonwealth games? What will Glaswegians benefit from after those excellent games in 2014 have ended?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I hope that Glaswegians benefit from the inspiration of sport—it can help people's health and education. We are looking forward to a decade of sport. This is not just about the London Olympics in 2012 and the Commonwealth games in 2014, because from next year a major sporting event will be held in the UK every year. I hope that we can unite to ensure that all our different spheres benefit from making sport successful.

Portable Antiquities Scheme

Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the future funding and management of the portable antiquities scheme.

Margaret Hodge: The portable antiquities scheme is funded by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. In recognition of the scheme's importance, the MLA intends to maintain current funding for the next financial year while it undertakes a review, with the British Council and other stakeholders.

Tim Loughton: I know that the Minister is aware of the excellent work of the portable antiquities scheme—it has recorded more than 314,000 finds on its database and its website received 82 million hits last year. It is probably one of the few successful Government databases to date. She will also be aware of the concerns expressed in my early-day motion, which has been signed by 161 Members, from all parties. Does she realise that the MLA's proposal to freeze the funding will result in the loss of five front-line, important jobs? Is it not time to transfer the direct responsibility for the PAS to the British Museum, which has been running the scheme successfully and is best placed to promote and expand it in the best interests of promoting culture in this country? The British Museum has had such success in promoting culture through the PAS.

Margaret Hodge: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the success of the scheme—we all think it is an incredibly successful scheme. Of course, it is another mark-up for a Labour Government, because we introduced it in 1997. Secondly, rumours abound about a loss of staff, but that has not been approved by anybody and is a matter for the scheme itself. It has received not only a bit of inflationary funding from the MLA, but extra funding from the British Museum, so I am unsure why those running the scheme feel the need to make a cut.
	In a tight fiscal environment, we want to see how we can best maintain and grow the scheme and where the best synergies lie. That could be with the British Museum, through the renaissance in the regions programme or by the scheme's remaining in the MLA. Those are the options that will be examined by the British Museum and all other stakeholders during the review.

David Taylor: The House will be familiar with the reign of the late third century Roman emperor of Britain, Carausius, who was overthrown in a coup d'état by his finance Minister—no change there, then. Two very valuable golden coins from his reign were recently unearthed by an east midlands farmer and they have joined the 330,000 discoveries in the portable antiquities scheme collection. Will the Minister reassure the House that incentives will be given for future finds of that kind to go to the PAS, because otherwise for lack of finance such finds will not be interpreted and the British public will not be able to identify with their past of two millenniums ago?

Margaret Hodge: I would love to see the coins to which my hon. Friend refers. I have been privileged to see a number of the finds for which the scheme has been responsible. We know how successful the scheme has been, because in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, 97 per cent. of the finds by members of the public came through funds liaison officers, who work on that scheme.
	The scheme is in a good place. Confirmation of the continuation of the MLA's funding of the scheme, at a time when its own funding has been quite severely constrained, demonstrates the general regard in which the scheme is held. I have no doubt that all those working on the review will try to ensure that the scheme is maintained over time.

Robert Key: I encourage the Minister, in her constant battle with the Treasury, to ensure that the scheme is expanded rather than frozen. It is one of the great success stories in the world of archaeology and my county archaeologist told me only this morning that in Wiltshire alone—which has the world heritage site of Stonehenge and Avebury—more than 20 Roman sites a year are being identified. Relations with metal detectorists, which have been bad for years, are suddenly coming good, and that is to the benefit of the whole of archaeology.

Margaret Hodge: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have very good relationships with the Treasury, not least because we have an ex-Chief Secretary as our Secretary of State. We achieved a good settlement in tight fiscal circumstances for the whole of the DCMS budget. I have no doubt that the scheme will continue in good health, but a review is sensible, to discover whether any good synergies will emerge from relocation. That could save money at the back end so that more can be spent on front-line services.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: When something is working, is it not a good idea to leave it alone? Could the Secretary of State not be persuaded to understand that before this scheme was working efficiently, many archaeological finds were lost to the United Kingdom and even to museums in general? Would it not be more sensible simply to accept that far from putting the scheme into the freezer while we consider whether it is successful, we should give it more money and encouragement, especially as—for once—we have managed to get something working efficiently?

Margaret Hodge: I have a great regard for my hon. Friend, but I do not agree that the best way to protect and promote good schemes is to leave them untouched. There is always room to see whether we can improve the effectiveness of the scheme or find efficiencies. The context in which we run schemes can change, and my hon. Friend will be aware, as I am, of the current fiscal constraints. We have to ensure that we get best value for every £1 we spend.

Edward Vaizey: As we are discussing archaeology, I remind the Minister that the scheme was started in 1996 by the Conservative Government. How can she describe as a good settlement a 25 per cent. cut in the MLA's funding, a £3 million cut in its budget and the loss of five posts from a scheme that she herself has said is incredibly successful?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman is being selective in his use of statistics. The MLA's budget has not been cut: it has risen with inflation. However, we have chosen to prioritise within its budget the funding for the renaissance programme, which will ensure that we can conserve, and build on, the great advances that we have made in our regional museums. That is important for all sorts of reasons, not just because we want to conserve those very good collections. Regional museums can provide the first experience of museum visiting for those who cannot travel to the national museums. If children go to museums, they are much more likely to go as adults, so I do not apologise for making that a priority.
	Within the remaining funding that is available to the MLA, we have to look for financial efficiencies, but I repeat that this particular scheme has not been cut. The cut of five posts is not justified in relation to the budget figures, although there may be management reasons for it—I do not know. I applaud the MLA, because all hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is a good scheme that should continue. However, it should still be reviewed, because that is the responsible thing to do.

National Museums (Children)

Kelvin Hopkins: How many children visited national museums in 2006-07.

Margaret Hodge: Some 8.4 million children under 16 visited national museums in 2006-07. That represents a 79 per cent. increase in child visits since the introduction of free admission for children in April 1999.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. She will know that the renaissance in the regions programme introduced by the Government has been of tremendous benefit to local museums. As a member of Friends of Luton Museums, I know that many more young children have been to our museums as a result of the increased funding. What more will she do to help even more children to go to national museums, especially children who live long distances away?

Margaret Hodge: I acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has done in his constituency. There are two museums in Luton: the Stockwood Discovery Centre, where we are investing £6 million, and the Wardown Park museum, which is about to receive an excellent touring exhibition on ancient Greece from the British Museum. [Hon. Members: "A Tory exhibition?"] A touring exhibition. It is due to open on 3 March.
	What we can do consists partly of what we have already done, which Opposition Members seem to think is not a good idea—ensuring that the renaissance in the regions programme is protected and expanded a little bit in the current comprehensive spending review period. The other thing that we can do involves a programme similar to the very successful sports offer in school, which we introduced, which gives children an entitlement to two hours of sport a week rising to five hours. We are working on introducing a cultural offer giving children two hours a week rising to five hours of experiencing and participating in culture. Part of that must involve going to museums. If people go to museums as children, they are far more likely to go as adults.

Julian Lewis: Yesterday, I had the privilege of representing the leader of my party in Liverpool at the deeply moving holocaust memorial event. It struck me how difficult it is to convey a sensitive subject such as wartime atrocities to all age ranges. Will the Minister of State join me in expressing admiration for how the Imperial War museum and the Royal Air Force museum, to take but two examples, manage to cover the whole spectrum, supplying information to children at one end and those undertaking the deepest academic research at the other?

Margaret Hodge: It is wonderful to find unity across the House. I concur completely with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Work is done on that subject by a range of organisations, including our museums, as well as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which does an enormous amount of important work, particularly in schools, to bring to life for this generation the atrocities of past generations. It is hugely important work, and we need to continue it in future generations.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will have heard the comments of the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), when I raised with him the problems that have occurred as a result of the wonderful success of the free entry programme. The programme has caused problems for museums such as the National Waterways museum in my constituency. He made a very positive statement in relation to the work of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. Can the Minister of State give us a progress report and tell us when we will see some positive evidence of delivery to help my museum?

Margaret Hodge: I am aware of the problems relating to the National Waterways museum, and I know that my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State met representatives from the museum early in his tenure to discuss them. The truth is that it will be extremely difficult for us, given the budget constraints, to introduce new museums into the national family eligible for free admission. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and any others he wants to bring along to discuss alternative funding sources to ensure the continuation of that valuable museum resource in his constituency.

Arts (North-East)

Ashok Kumar: If he will make a statement on Government support for the arts in the north-east.

Andy Burnham: Arts Council England is responsible for Government support for the arts. Its budget for the north-east is £ 13.5 million this year.

Ashok Kumar: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, and wish him well for many years to come? The Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art is very popular, thanks to financial support from the Government and Middlesbrough council: the funding that has been provided has gone down very well. So far this year, 150,000 people have visited the art gallery. May I invite my right hon. Friend to visit the gallery and see for himself the great success that the Labour Government have created in Middlesbrough?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for his question and for his kind invitation. Indeed, I will take him up on it, and go to Middlesbrough at the earliest opportunity. In towns in both the north-east and the north-west, we see the crucial role that arts and culture can play in leading regeneration. I saw it myself in Liverpool on Saturday, where the new Museum of Liverpool is changing the shape of the Liverpool waterfront. He is absolutely right to say that arts and culture can be the centrepiece of successful regeneration programmes, and I look forward to seeing what is happening in his own area of Middlesbrough.

John Whittingdale: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's comments, is he aware of the serious concerns expressed by many arts organisations, including the Compass theatre in Sheffield, that decisions by the Arts Council are dictated more by questions of social engineering than of artistic merit? Will he undertake an urgent review of the guidelines under which the Arts Council operates?

Andy Burnham: May I tell the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that it is a long-standing principle that the Arts Council should operate at arm's length from the Department and from Government generally? It would be quite inappropriate for me to breach that principle so soon into my job. In a former role, I made it clear that all public sector bodies should be subject to challenge and that money should be moved around the system to fund greater excellence. I support the Arts Council in what it is doing to ensure that that goal is achieved.

Kevan Jones: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? The last time the Lindisfarne Gospels visited the north-east at the Laing art gallery in Newcastle, record numbers of visitors came to see them. Would he agree to meet a delegation of people who are campaigning for a return visit of the gospels to the north-east, particularly in light of the exposé in  The Journal in Newcastle of the concerted campaign by the metropolitan cultural snobs on the board of the British Library, who have worked hard to try to prevent them from visiting the region again?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for that question, but I will not pass comment— [ Interruption. ] I hesitate to agree with my hon. Friend, as that would be a sure way to the exit door. However, I would, of course, be happy to meet him and a delegation from the north-east.

Philip Davies: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), has the Secretary of State in the short time in which he has been in post, had an opportunity to see the grant application form from the Arts Council, which asks people who have applied to funding to give the number of members of their management committee who are bisexual, gay, lesbian or heterosexual? Will the Secretary of State explain why on earth funding should be based on people's sexual orientation, and is funding for the arts in the north-east really dependent on how many gays and lesbians happen to apply for it?

Andy Burnham: I am dismayed by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question. I know that he is following the tone set by the Leader of the Opposition, who complained that the Arts Council was giving too many grants to "one-legged Lithuanian lesbians". That is wrong on two counts: it is not just offensive but it breaches the Arts Council's arm's length principle. It is important to point out that the excellent McMaster report, published just a few weeks ago, says very clearly that we should move from measurement to judgment: we should reduce the targets for arts organisations, fund excellence, and give those organisations the freedom to put on the very best possible work for as many people as possible. I entirely endorse that principle, and I do not believe that politicians in the House should meddle in the Arts Council's decisions.

Participation in Sport

Andrew MacKay: What recent estimate he has made of the level of participation in sport in the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Andy Burnham: The 2006-07 school sport survey showed that 86 per cent. of pupils were doing at least two hours of high quality physical education and school sport a week, exceeding the 85 per cent. target.

Andrew MacKay: Hopefully the new Secretary of State believes that sports clubs will play a key role in increasing participation in sport across the country. If so, what does he make of the dreadful figures showing that so few people are members of sports clubs in our country compared with our European neighbours? Could those figures have something to do with this Government having not given sufficient lottery money to sports clubs and having deprived them of money that should have gone to them?

Andy Burnham: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that sports clubs play a hugely important role in encouraging young people and others to take up sport. My constituency has some of the best amateur rugby league clubs in the country, and the Government have supported them through initiatives such as the community club development fund, which has got money through governing bodies straight to the clubs. We have also introduced community amateur sports clubs tax relief, which helps amateur sports clubs. In this job, it will be my passion to increase, improve, help and support the network of sports clubs in this country, which give so much more back to communities than simply the opportunity to play sport.

David Kidney: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Stafford Town football club on receiving £670,000 from the lottery and the National Sports Foundation for its community work? Will he accept the suggestion made to me last week by sixth-formers at Wolgarston high school, Penkridge, who said that we should forge stronger links between community amateur sports clubs and schools, so that when young people's interest in sport is sparked at school, they can continue it outside and after school?

Andy Burnham: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I am one of those who was unfortunate enough to be at school in the 1980s under a previous Administration. I remember when competitive sport was taken away: I was aged 15 at the time, and cricket and football ended—it was a devastating blow. We need to get those links right, so that we get competitive sport back in schools. We need strong links with local clubs, so that players come through and go on to play for those clubs. That is exactly the right way to go.

Regional Theatre

Hugo Swire: What the Government's policy is on regional theatre in England; and if he will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: Policy on regional theatre is determined by the Arts Council England. It published its theatre policy document in November 2006, and it is available on its website. The document sets out its priorities for theatre from 2007 to 2011.

Hugo Swire: While I imagine that most hon. Members on both sides of the House subscribe to the principle of the arm's-length funding of the arts, which the new Secretary of State has articulated, equally I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be perplexed and bemused by some of the recent Arts Council decisions with regard to the regional funding of theatres, not least the Bush theatre in London and, more locally to me, the Northcote theatre in Exeter, which has just received £2 million in renovation grants from the Arts Council and was set to receive its budget grant. Now there has been a volte-face, which I welcome. With the new Secretary of State in his post and the outgoing chief executive of the Arts Council, Peter Hewitt, being replaced by Alan Davey from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, it is timely to have a fundamental review of the guidelines—my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Select Committee Chairman, just asked the Secretary of State for such a review—outlining what the Arts Council should be doing in the 21st century that does not compromise the principle of arm's-length funding.

Margaret Hodge: The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the only thing that has gone wrong and on which he wants to intervene is the arm's-length funding. If we were to interfere with that principle, it would kill off freedom of expression, inhibit artistic freedom and destroy much of the excellence in the arts of which we are so proud in Great Britain today. Beyond that, the Arts Council works to guidelines set by the Department, answerable to Parliament, in each spending review period. Within that framework, it should be left alone to make the best judgments. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, no final decisions have been made yet—they will be made later this week.

Topical Questions

Dawn Butler: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andy Burnham: I take on this new role at a time of tremendous opportunity for culture, sport and media in this country, and I will work enthusiastically to ensure that we make the most of that opportunity. I pay tribute to my predecessor—and, indeed, to my predecessor's predecessor—for setting the Department on a clear direction towards delivering world-class cultural and sporting activity. I intend to continue that work, and my primary focus will be where the Government's should be: on the base of the talent pyramid, giving people new opportunities to develop artistic and sporting talents. The Government have made progress, but too much talent is still going unspotted. That is the challenge, in my dream job—to make sure that everyone else has the opportunity to realise their dreams.

Dawn Butler: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I echo the good wishes of all Members of the House and congratulate him on his new appointment.
	I am the Member of Parliament for the most diverse constituency in the UK. Will the Secretary of State say whether he supports the new McMaster review on excellence, and in particular, its recommendations on diversity?

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her warm welcome. I am happy to endorse fully the conclusions of the McMaster report. People who have read it will have seen that it is the very opposite of elitist. It seeks to reclaim the word "excellence" from those who push an elitist view of the arts. It is not without its challenges. On diversity, McMaster says:
	"We live in one of the most diverse societies the world has ever seen, yet this is not reflected in the culture we produce, or in who is producing it."
	My hon. Friend is right to highlight diversity as an incredibly important issue for the arts in the years to come. There is more to do, but we have set out the right direction in this report, and we will follow it through.

Mark Harper: The new Secretary of State has a lot of experience of comprehensive spending reviews. In the 2004 review, the Government set a target for the growth of the tourism and creative leisure industries. By 2007, no mention was made of tourism at all. Why was there that change in Government priorities?

Andy Burnham: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the funding settlement for the Department; my right hon. Friend the Minister of State also mentioned it a moment ago. Like her, I pay tribute to the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury for securing such a marvellous settlement for the Department. The Department has more funds; it can prioritise and ensure that the Olympics bring more tourists into this country. Like everybody else, the tourism authorities in this country have to prioritise and make sure that they spend their funds as wisely as possible. That is what they will do.

Lindsay Hoyle: Sport is topical at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is to get people to play sport and that they have to have facilities? Will he ensure, through his good offices, that funding will be available for sporting villages, which Chorley sorely lacks at the moment?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend; a sports village in Chorley would be more than welcome. We are happy to work with him and the agencies to ensure that we have the sporting infrastructure to build on the £4 billion of investment in sport that there has been in the past 10 years. The Government cannot be accused of not investing in sport. We want to do more and to get more people actively involved.

Jeremy Hunt: I believe that the Secretary of State is an Everton fan, so he will know the importance of stable management at the top of clubs. No doubt he will be as bemused as we are that he is the third Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in just eight months. However, we warmly welcome him to his post.
	The Secretary of State said that he fully endorsed the McMaster report. One of its recommendations is that the Arts Council should have a representative in the recruitment processes for every organisation that he funds. Is that not an appalling imposition of central control that completely breaches the arm's-length principle of arts funding and is completely against the spirit of letting a thousand flowers bloom?

Andy Burnham: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his kind introduction. Mr. David Moyes is probably a fine example to everybody in Government of stability and making the right decisions for the long term.
	I spent the weekend studying the McMaster report in some detail. It articulates the right way forward at this precise moment in time for arts in this country. It does not involve a debate between access on the one hand and excellence on the other, but is about having the two together so that the highest quality art can be made available to as many people as possible. Not every recommendation in the report falls to the Government—some of them are for arts organisations and the Arts Council to consider and take forward. It is a good principle that those who care about and are passionate about the arts are involved in the decision-making process.

Jeremy Hunt: I appreciate that the Secretary of State is new to his role, but may I ask him about an important point in the McMaster report, which specifically says that the Arts Council should have a representative involved in the recruitment processes of all the organisations that it funds? As he will appreciate, such a representative would have enormous weight in that process because of the money that the Arts Council wields. Would not that mean a huge increase in the Arts Council's central control of the way in which its funded operations operate and, among many good recommendations in the McMaster report, be a bad step backwards?

Andy Burnham: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If he has genuine concerns about that particular part of the McMaster report, I would be happy to discuss it further with him. I read it not as an attempt to extend the reach of the Arts Council into every organisation, but as a sensible attempt to ensure clarity throughout the system and consistency in how decisions on arts funding are taken. However, there is, of course, an opportunity for debate to take place about this very important report for the future of the arts. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, I would be happy to discuss it with him, but I am very encouraged and enthused by what Sir Brian McMaster has put forward to the Department.

Tony Lloyd: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, even as an Everton supporter.
	My right hon. Friend rightly talks about the encouragement of diversity in our arts. The Arts Council North West has threatened LipService, the radical and innovative theatre company, and Queer Up North with cessation of funding. He may be right that the Government should not directly influence the views of the Arts Council, but should not they be saying to the Arts Council that it is unreasonable of it not to give adequate notice of or to have proper discussion about when it is going to withdraw funding, because that is the real issue about the incompetent way in which this year's funding proposals have been taken forward?

Margaret Hodge: First, I say to my hon. Friend that final decisions have yet to be taken and we will know what they are by the end of this week. Secondly, he is right to say that proper notice should be given, and the Arts Council intends to work through that with individual arts organisations. Thirdly, the Arts Council takes diversity in funding of the arts extremely seriously, as we do, and we will have to see whether that is reflected in its decisions; I hope and believe that it will be.

Adam Holloway: The Minister will be aware of the iconic "Angel of the South" sculpture proposed for the Ebbsfleet area. This morning, the five finalist artists have been chosen. How much say does he think that local people should have in the final choice?

Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman touches on a matter that we all feel is extremely important—that local people should be engaged in the decision-making process on public art ventures in localities. The art is for them, will be enjoyed by them, and will give an identity to the place in which they live. They should therefore feel that they too are engaged in the decisions about which artist is commissioned and which particular bit of sculpture they have.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Has the Minister had a chance to discuss proposals by the British Council to downgrade activities and funding for the promotion of British art abroad and instead to spend the money on more conferences, multi-resource interactive facilities, networking and so on? Does she agree that it is essential that we promote the best of British art abroad, and will she make that clear to the Foreign Office and to the British Council?

Margaret Hodge: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is crucial that we promote the best of British art—a field in which we are so great—abroad, not just because of what it says about Britain, but because of the role it plays more broadly in the creative industries. The Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers believe, as we do, that that is important. I am aware of the proposals made by the British Council to change the way in which it works in the arts field, and we are in discussion with the council to ensure that it meets the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations and ours.

Don Foster: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role, and I also welcome his praise for the McMaster report, including its recommendation to reduce targets. Is he aware that his new Department has failed to meet its target to boost participation and attendance at artistic events? If there are no longer to be targets in that area, can he assure us that he will continue to work to ensure that we see an increase in attendance, and not a reduction, as in the past 12 months?

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome, and I also thank him for his support for the McMaster report. It is important for the arts world to hear that there is consensus in the House on these matters.
	I was considering the spending review from a different vantage point only a few days ago, but we are trying to create a framework in the review whereby the level of ambition in a target is set at a local level, so that local organisations have ownership of that target and can believe that setting such a target is the right thing to do. Such targets can be made part of the local area agreements that local authorities are currently striking. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there should be no let-off in our ambition to get people into the arts, but it is also right that we hear the complaints made about having too great a reliance on targets, and that we free up organisations up to fund what they want to do.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to an exchange I had with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on 17 December, in which I alleged that there is cultural impoverishment of many schoolchildren because they are denied access to and experience of quality opera, ballet and classical music? Will he ensure that that issue does not fall between two ministries? We must really address this matter of cultural impoverishment. Will he allow me to bring the English Youth Ballet and the national chamber music school, Pro Corda, to see him and an education Minister to see how we can remedy this wrong? It is working class children in particular who are denied access to such quality culture.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is on the right theme as far as I am concerned, because the issue is a passion of mine. We can look forward to significant progress in this area with the development of what we call the cultural offer, whereby we make available a much wider range of cultural and artistic opportunities to young children at school. Some arts organisations, such as the Royal Opera House and others, are doing a great job in forging links with schools and making new opportunities available. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to see whether we can take that agenda still further forward.

MINISTER FOR THE OLYMPICS

The Minister for the Olympics was asked—

Legacy Objectives

Mark Harper: What recent discussions she has had on achieving the legacy objectives of the 2012 Olympic Games; and if she will make a statement.

Tessa Jowell: The London 2012 Olympics will be the first ever games to build legacy in from the outset. That legacy is built around the five main themes of sport, regeneration of the east end of London, opportunities for young people, sustainability and the UK's profile in the world. We will shortly publish the detailed access plan, which will describe how each of those specific commitments will be realised.
	I have had extensive discussions with a wide range of interested parties about how we maximise the legacy. We have also extended an invitation to people in every region of the country through two 2012 roadshows, the UK School Games and, as recently as two weeks ago, the launch of the new business opportunities network; £6 billion and 75,000 contracts will be available for British firms to bid for throughout the country.

Mark Harper: I thank the Minister for that answer. She will know, obviously, that the Olympic village will have 3,600 new homes. In the spirit of the Paralympics, will she tell me how many of those homes will be fully accessible for disabled people?

Tessa Jowell: My understanding is that the whole Olympic village will be constructed to the highest accessibility standards.

Dawn Butler: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what involvement Wembley will have in the Olympic legacy?

Tessa Jowell: Wembley will be the location for the football part of the Olympic games and as such will be seen around the world, to our great pride.

Tom Brake: The Minister has committed to use the Olympics to help to create a £100 billion tourism industry in the UK by 2010. Indeed, even more ambitious figures have been put forward. However, the most recent DCMS figures on tourism productivity show that the Government's original estimates were wildly over-optimistic—to a factor of 12. Does the Minister agree that the £9 million cut to VisitBritain's budget means that it is now impossible to achieve a sustainable Olympic tourism legacy?

Tessa Jowell: No, I do not accept that at all. The estimate of the tourism premium from the Olympic games is about £2 billion. Every regional development agency has developed its own Olympic plan. Plans for the development of tourism and the realisation of the tourism potential are critical parts of those Olympic plans. No doubt has been cast on the feasibility of whether those plans will deliver the Olympic tourism premium.

Olympic Delivery Authority

Richard Ottaway: What her latest estimate is of the budget required for the Olympic Delivery Authority to hold the 2012 Olympic Games in London.

Tessa Jowell: On 10 December 2007, I announced public funding for the Olympic Delivery Authority of £6.09 billion plus a contingency of just over £2 billion against the known programme-wide risks and risks outside the ODA's control. That amounts to a total public funding commitment of just under £8.1 billion to build the venues and infrastructure needed for the games. Recent scrutiny of the programme and the budget shows that the ODA remains on budget and on-track to deliver in line with my announcement of last March.

Richard Ottaway: While I share the Minister's enthusiasm for the Olympics, does she share my belief that the finances need to be utterly transparent? Last November, the permanent secretary in her Department said that most, if not all, of the contingency fund would have to be spent because of the complex and high-risk nature of the project. In the circumstances, would it not be helpful to set out how she envisages that the contingency fund will have to be spent and to publish a revised budget?

Tessa Jowell: There is no need to publish a revised budget. The point that the permanent secretary made to the Select Committee on Public Accounts was accurate—at this stage in the development of a highly risky construction project, the only safe assumption is that the contingency will be fully used. However, the further assessment of the budget for the ODA has shown that there is an 80 per cent. probability that the Olympic park will be developed for less than £8.1 billion, a figure that includes the contingency. The finances are under control and transparent, and I have made clear commitments to ensure that the House is updated on the budget at six-monthly intervals.

Hugh Robertson: In Athens, rising security costs were the key reason why the budget overran so disastrously. Given that myriad organisations are involved—the Army, the police, the security services and the private sector—and that there will always be a temptation for the police to put a number of desirable items in their budget through on the Olympic balance sheet, what precise control mechanism are the Government putting in place to ensure that that does not happen here?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question and we are determined that the Olympic security budget will pay for costs that are directly incurred by the Olympics rather than other matters. He knows that there are three responsible elements: the organising committee for the games, the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Home Office, which takes the lead. He also knows that the governance arrangements for security to ensure the effectiveness of the plan and proper cost control are in place. We expect the Olympic security plan to be completed and published in the next few months. However, it must be subject to continual review and updating between now and 2012.

Legacy (Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: What she expects the legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games to be in Northamptonshire.

Tessa Jowell: The east midlands strategy for the 2012 games has made some significant commitments, including to increased participation in sport, raising the profile of tourism in the region and providing support to businesses to enable them to win 2012 contracts. Already, 17 of the contracts have been let by the ODA to firms in the east midlands. There will be further opportunities for the east midlands to get involved in the cultural olympiad and in volunteering. However, none of that will happen by chance and I extend an invitation to the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues to utilise fully the many opportunities for his constituents in the east midlands to be part of the 2012 games.

Peter Bone: I asked about Northamptonshire rather than the east midlands, but is it not it a fact that there will not be a legacy for the east midlands? The Olympics are a good thing to have and will be a great success for this country, but we must not pretend that there will be a legacy for anywhere north of Watford.

Tessa Jowell: It is not the case that there will be no legacy for the east midlands and for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Wellingborough. There are opportunities for engaging in volunteering and potentially developing training camps. An economic legacy derives from bidding for Olympic contracts. The opportunity to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's constituency benefits is in his hands.

Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend know that, in Northamptonshire, we are setting up a champion's fund to pay for young athletes to be trained for the Olympics? Does she agree that one of the great legacies that we in Northamptonshire are creating for ourselves is ensuring that we have more highly trained, elite athletes, who can take part in the Olympics and other international and national games?

Tessa Jowell: That is absolutely the point. I pay the warmest tribute to my hon. Friend, who has shown genuine leadership in Northampton in bringing together businesses and local organisations in pursuit of the Olympic potential for young people in her constituency. I congratulate the young athletes in the talented athlete programme and I commend the Northamptonshire champion's fund, of which she has been such a powerful advocate.

Personal Statement

Derek Conway: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement to the House. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has today issued its report on the complaint made against me for employing my son as a researcher and parliamentary assistant.
	I will not delay the business of the House by going through the contents of that report, as it is publicly available. The Committee was entitled to reach the conclusions that it did and I have accepted its criticisms in full. I unreservedly apologise to the House for my administrative shortcomings and the misjudgments I made. In my submissions to the Committee and the commissioner, I set out my case and I leave it to hon. Members to form their own judgment of my conduct. I should like to make it clear that throughout the investigation the commissioner acted with absolute courtesy and the Committee afforded me every opportunity to explain my position.
	In apologising to the House, I would also like to apologise to my constituents and to the Old Bexley and Sidcup Conservative association, which has been so very supportive to me and my family throughout a very difficult period. The House will comprehend the impact that this matter has on me personally and also on my family. I have let them down very badly indeed, and no judgment from any quarter could be more harsh than that which I apply to myself.

Points of Order

Rob Marris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It saddens me to raise this point of order. Part of your role is to uphold the rights of Back-Bench MPs; part of my role as a Back-Bench MP is to uphold the rights of my constituents and to hold the Executive to account. On 10 September, I wrote to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Despite seven reminders since then, I have not received a reply as of 10 minutes ago. Will you call the First Lord of the Treasury to come before the House and explain what is happening with Members' correspondence?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's deep concern will be duly recorded and heard.

David Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am having some difficulty understanding how motion No. 1 on today's Order Paper can be in order. It appears to have been made under Standing Order 15(2)(b), in so far as it is a motion to be moved by a Minister of the Crown
	"to the effect that any specified business may be proceeded with at this day's sitting...until a specified hour"—
	namely 10 o'clock. Since motion No. 1 is such a motion, whether it says so or not, it should be taken not now, but at 10 o'clock. However, if it were taken at 10 o'clock, it would have no effect, because it would be too late. Therefore, in my view the motion seems to be out of order.

Mr. Speaker: If the motion were out of order, it would not be on the Order Paper and it would not be in my dossier. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the motion is definitely in order.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you tell the House whether the effect of motion No. 1, if passed, would be to make it impossible for more than one amendment to motion No. 2 to be taken? Obviously, motion No. 1 is a timetable motion for today. There are various amendments on the Order Paper, including ones tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have been led to believe that it might not have been open to you to select them even if you had been so minded, because they would have been precluded by motion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will stop the hon. Gentleman there. It was indeed open to me to select the amendment that he is questioning, but I did not select it. Therefore, the matter before us is the business of the House and the amendment that I have selected.

Business of the House

Jim Murphy: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman and Secretary David Miliband relating to the Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) not later than Ten o'clock; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	The effect of the motion would be to bring proceedings on the main procedural motion to a conclusion no later than 10 o'clock this evening. This is a straightforward motion that is procedural in nature. If the House agrees to it swiftly, we will have around six hours to discuss the Government's proposed approach to the important scrutiny of the European Union (Amendment) Bill. That discussion will give hon. Members the opportunity to debate the substantive business motion in detail. At that time, I will make the case in favour of a structured, themed approach to scrutiny of the Bill. A themed approach will ensure that we can cover the range of issues arising from the Lisbon treaty.

David Howarth: Can the Minister explain what difference the motion will make and how the business of the House would be structured differently if it were not passed?

Jim Murphy: The purpose of the motion is to bring our consideration on the main motion to a conclusion by 10 o'clock this evening. Once motion No. 1 has been considered, we will have the opportunity to discuss the structure of the table in motion No. 2 and the themed debates before the House.
	The themed debates will ensure that we are able to cover the range of issues that arise from the Lisbon treaty. The issues that we have identified are: justice and home affairs; energy; human rights; the single market; common foreign and security policy; international development; EU institutions and decision making; and climate change. That will allow us to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is going beyond the scope of the motion. The business that he is talking about relates to the next motion.

William Cash: rose—

Jim Murphy: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I shall nevertheless give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled this subject out of order. We shall have to wait and see what the hon. Gentleman says in his intervention.

William Cash: I was going to raise a similar point, and I am grateful to you for having ruled accordingly, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister be good enough to accept that the effect of this motion is to prevent debate, whereas there used to be a time when such programme motions and guillotines were used to ensure proper, orderly debate? This motion is designed to stop debate.

Jim Murphy: I think that the whole House will thank the hon. Gentleman for fulfilling the unusual role of keeping the House in order when it comes to a European debate.
	I am confident that, with some collective self-discipline, this allocation of time and the subsequent debate on the business motion will ensure that we have a comprehensive debate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister saying that, if anything that we wish to debate is not on the list of subjects that he has enunciated, it will be excluded from the debate if we accept his timetable? It is a simple point, but it is rather important.

Jim Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think that you would discourage me from responding to that point until our second debate this afternoon, at which time I shall be happy to respond to my hon. Friend's question.
	The allocation of time up to 10 o'clock this evening will give us ample opportunity to discuss the Government's motion and the amendment tabled in the name of the Opposition.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister explain why he seems to be wasting time on a motion on the 10 o'clock rule? We always finish at 10 o'clock on Mondays unless the business is suspended. If, by chance, we are still talking at 10, it will be up to the Government Chief Whip to rise to his feet and move that the question be now put. I cannot anticipate your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it is likely that that would be granted. We could have this debate every Monday. Is this an elaborate attempt on the part of the Government to demonstrate how generous they are with their time? In reality, the Minister is simply giving us the usual amount of time for a Monday debate.

Jim Murphy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. The important point, however, is that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) probably would not have given us the opportunity to conclude our proceedings at 10 o'clock, and the purpose of the motion is to ensure that we can do so. Based on the encouragement of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), I urge the House to support the motion.

Simon Hughes: I just want to make sure that the House understands the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). This motion is complete nonsense. It is unnecessary. If it were necessary, it would be serving to reduce the opportunity for amendments. However, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that that is not the case and that you had full discretion over the amendments. This motion should therefore not be on the Order Paper.
	The Government have consulted about the style of dealing with the Bill, but not about the timetable. I am afraid that they have started today badly, because they are not only alienating the people whom they have alienated before by bringing the Bill to the House, but, procedurally, alienating some of their friends who support the Bill but who cannot support this motion or a timetable that has not been carefully negotiated to accommodate all the interests of the House. We shall oppose the motion when it is put to the vote.

Bob Spink: This motion seeks to limit debate to 10 o'clock tonight, which in view of its importance is quite improper. The whole country is interested in our constitutional relationship with the European Union. We are debating the timetable for that debate, so it is important that we do not curtail the debate in any way.
	Last night, BBC Radio 4's "Westminster Hour" at 10 pm covered the House's upcoming business, yet at no time was the EU debate mentioned. That shows, of course, the lack of publicity given by the BBC, because of its bias and probably as a result of the EU's funding of the BBC. The soft loans and other funding amount to some €256 million over the past five years alone. That shows the importance of our having an unlimited debate in this House, so that people in this country can understand the importance of the question. I am certainly against the motion and I urge the House to vote against it so that Members can debate the matter for as long as it takes and we can get publicity and understanding in the country on its importance.

Rob Marris: In response to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), I have to say that my constituents would find it odd if we were to have a long debate about timetabling a debate for a timetable.

William Hague: The Minister might have done better to have moved the motion in 10 or 20 seconds rather than partly to have got on to other things. As the Opposition, we disapprove of all the restrictions proposed so far on debating this particular measure, but we believe that the sooner that we get on to the main motion before the House, the better.

Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman and Secretary David Miliband relating to the Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) not later than Ten o'clock; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

David Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the vote that we have just had, may I ask you to interpret Standing Order No. 32, on the selection of amendments? Only the main motion and one amendment have been selected, which does not seem enough to keep us going until 10 o'clock, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) notwithstanding. Could you confirm that if time passes very slowly and the debate looks like coming to a premature end, you have the power to make a further selection of amendments during the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—I do have the power when a debate is in progress to allow what is known as a manuscript amendment, but I am not going to do that this evening, so he need not worry. It has been my experience in the long time that I have been in the House that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is certainly able to keep things going until 10 o'clock—in fact, beyond, if necessary. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) for his deep concern, but I do not think that he has anything to worry about.

Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)

Jim Murphy: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall have effect.
	(1) In this Order, 'allotted day' means a day on which the first business is—
	(a) a motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown to approve the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of specified matters,
	(b) proceedings on the European Union (Amendment) Bill, or
	(c) a motion to vary or supplement this Order.
	(2) On an allotted day proceedings shall be taken in accordance with the Table.
	(3) Standing Orders Nos. 83D and 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings) and 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provisions) shall apply to proceedings to which this Order applies as if they were subject to a programme order.
	(4) On an allotted day no debate under S.O. No. 24 (emergency debates) may take place until after the conclusion of proceedings specified in the Table.
	(5) The rule of the House against anticipation shall not apply to proceedings specified in the Table.
	(6) If a Minister of the Crown moves a motion to vary or supplement this Order (including, in particular, so as to make provision about Lords Messages)—
	(a) if the amendment does not reduce the amount of time allotted overall to consideration of matters connected with the Treaty of Lisbon, the Question shall be put forthwith, and
	(b) otherwise, proceedings on the motion shall be brought to a conclusion not later than three-quarters of an hour after commencement.
	TABLE
	
		
			  Allotted  Day  Proceedings  Latest time for conclusion 
			 1 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the following matters: fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill: any selected amendments to Clause 1 and the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill; any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 2 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to energy. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 3 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning human rights.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to human rights. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 4 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the single market. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 5 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning foreign, security and defence policy.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to foreign, security and defence policy. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 6 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning international development.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to international development. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 7 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 8 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning climate change.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to climate change, remaining amendments on Clause 2 and the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 9 Committee on the Bill — Clauses 3 to 7.  
			 10 Committee on the Bill — Clauses 3 to 7, so far as not completed on Allotted Day 9.  
			 11 Committee on the Bill — Clauses 8, the Schedule, New Clauses and New Schedules. The moment of interruption 
			 12 Remaining proceedings on the Bill. 6 hours after commencement 
		
	
	Notwithstanding your comments, Mr. Speaker, regarding the point of order by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), if he had been here for any of the previous European debates, he would know that we could certainly otherwise be here beyond 10 o'clock this evening and, potentially, 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and not because of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The fact that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is opening for the Liberal Democrats should guarantee—if we needed such a guarantee—that we will be discussing these matters up to 10 o'clock this evening.
	The Prime Minister made the following clear in his post-European Council statement on 17 December:
	"With the publication of the Bill"
	that legislates for the amendments to the European Communities Act,
	"Parliament will now have an opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to implement it. We will ensure that there is sufficient time for debate on the Floor of the House, so that the Bill can be examined in the fullest detail and all points of view can be heard."

Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Frank Field: rose—

Jim Murphy: I wonder whether I might be allowed to finish the quote, by way of introduction, before I take both interventions.
	The last sentence of the quote from the Prime Minister was as follows:
	"That will give the House the fullest...opportunity to consider the treaty, and the deal secured for the UK, before ratification."—[ Official Report, 17 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 598.]
	I shall now give way.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is extraordinarily courteous and helpful, and I am deeply grateful to the Minister. I have studied the careful motion on the subjects to be discussed. May I ask him why transport is not mentioned in any form? He will be aware that Galileo, the railway packages and the creation of a European space agency mean that many aspects of the treaty involve a transference of powers from the House of Commons to the European institutions. We should be debating those, yet at no point in the motion are they even vaguely mentioned.

Jim Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind intervention.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not a right hon. Member.

Jim Murphy: My apologies to my hon. Friend. On the substance of her intervention, perhaps I can reassure her about the important points that she raised. Those matters could be discussed entirely reasonably in our themed debates on energy, on the single market and on the EU institutions and decision-making processes—it would be appropriate at that time to have the conversation about the EU institutions, the single market and transport.

Frank Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that some hon. Members—certainly some Labour Members—feel a certain apprehension about the way in which the Government are approaching this? We know that they claim that the nature of the European Union (Amendment) Bill is not a constitution, but a treaty, and therefore we do not need a referendum. The Prime Minister told the country that this would be fully debated in the House of Commons, but we then realised that it will be debated for a set period of time only and the Whips are on.
	We then see that the motion tabled by the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary has set topics only down for debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has already raised that matter. We have to spend most of our time debating general things—motherhood and apple pie are rather good—but those of us who want to probe the terms of the treaty and move amendments only have the chance to do so at the end of the day. If there was a real consultation on this, we would begin by allowing people to move amendments, even if the Minister chose the topics that we could debate that day.

Jim Murphy: The points raised by my right hon. Friend—there is a theme developing here; like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I do not enjoy the elevated status that he enjoys as a member of the Privy Council, but let us put that to one side for a moment—are important. I hope that my comments and the way in which I argue our case will be able to persuade him that his concerns can be met by the structure of the motion.

Patrick Cormack: Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am grateful that the Minister is very courteous. He deservedly has a reputation for courtesy, but frankly this situation is not good enough. On a number of occasions I have asked the Prime Minister at that Dispatch Box whether we would have proper time for this series of lengthy debates without a timetable motion. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister said that he would not have a timetable motion—he evaded the issue; he did not say that we would have one. The motion before us is so constricting and constraining that it will be impossible for the treaty to be properly debated in this House, and those who have a preference for parliamentary scrutiny over referendums, as some do, will be denied their proper opportunity to debate the issues.

Jim Murphy: Again, I hope that my remarks will convince the hon. Gentleman of the merits of the motion before us. In the quotation from the Prime Minister that I have already given, he said that there would be sufficient time for debate on the Floor of the House. The time available through this motion for debate is 12 days, which was the total time given to the ratification process for the treaties establishing the Single European Act, the Amsterdam treaty and the treaty of Nice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim Murphy: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee.

Paul Farrelly: After opposing a private Member's Bill on the issue tooth and claw, the Government were instrumental in ensuring that there was no agreement on a European directive on temporary and agency workers on 5 December last year. I note from the list of topics that there is no session provided to discuss the social and employment aspects of the treaty. Why is that, given the importance attached to those issues on the Government Benches? What day may issues such as the directive on agency workers, or indeed working rights generally, be discussed?

Jim Murphy: Of course, it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide which amendments will be in order on which day. However, the Government understand that the two themes that would lend themselves to the type of debate that my hon. Friend and others want are the debate on human rights, which will include the charter of fundamental rights, and the themed debate on the single market. Those would be the most appropriate opportunities to raise the issue of agency workers.

Michael Connarty: The Minister will realise that one of the most important debates that we had when he and the Foreign Secretary appeared before my Committee was on the charter of fundamental rights. It is clear that there is a wide divergence in the legal and political opinion of the posture taken by the Government and whether it is significant, sustainable or damaging to labour relations. In the interest of labour relations and many people in this country, the charter of fundamental rights deserves a separate day for debate. I notice that the amendment tabled by the Opposition includes a day on the charter combined with other subjects. The question whether the Government's position on the charter negates it or allows it to be applied in a way that would be useful to working people is fundamental.

Jim Murphy: On the question when the charter could be debated, I refer my hon. Friend, who speaks with great experience on such matters, to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The fact is that the United Kingdom has neither sought nor achieved an opt-out on the charter of fundamental rights, which will apply in every member state of the European Union. The UK's position on that is clear, but I look forward to the opportunity to discuss that and other related matters.

Simon Hughes: The Minister has said that the timetable that the Government propose is longer than the debates on three previous treaties. Will he put on record that the time taken by the debates on the Maastricht treaty—some of us see a parallel with this Bill, because of the debate about a referendum, which the Tory Government of the day opposed—was longer than that allocated in this motion? How many days were given to that debate on the Floor of the House?

Jim Murphy: I was not a Member at the time, and the hon. Gentleman was, but I think that it was 23 days. The motion was tabled, withdrawn and then re-tabled. The lesson of Maastricht, for both sides of the House, is that it was an exercise that we should repeat at our collective peril.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim Murphy: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) and then the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), the Opposition deputy Chief Whip.

Graham Stringer: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Minister said that there would be ample time to discuss transport under various other headings, such as energy. Can he tell us when a Minister from that Department will answer the debate, so that our many concerns about transport at a European level can be answered satisfactorily on the Floor of the House?

Jim Murphy: I am certain that whichever Minister stands at the Dispatch Box during that debate will be able to answer the questions in great detail and with great authority. As the debate progresses, Government Members will take a whole-Government approach to making a positive case for Europe, which will involve different Ministers, including Cabinet Ministers, standing at the Dispatch Box making a passionate case for Europe. I give way to the shadow deputy Chief Whip.

Andrew Robathan: The Minister is being extremely generous in taking interventions. To take him back to that very interesting quote from the Prime Minister, I shall give him another:
	"The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate."
	That is from 24 June. I have been studying the differences between the constitution and the reform treaty. At some point in our debate, should not the Government put the case for not holding a referendum to the House of Commons?

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and congratulate him on taking a milder tone today than he did last week.

Andrew Robathan: No more propaganda.

Jim Murphy: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to complete that sentence as he did last week, but I shall leave it there. I was asked soon after taking this job last summer whether we would guarantee the Commons an opportunity, during the consideration process, to debate and vote on a motion on a referendum on the treaty. We specifically designed clause 8 of the European Union (Amendment) Bill to enable that. There will be an opportunity for a referendum. I note in passing that the Government and the Opposition both propose a one-day debate on that subject.

John Gummer: Does the Minister accept that even those of us who are not unhappy about the treaty but do not believe in referendums are unhappy about the timetable for the same reasons as many who have doubts about the treaty? A series of subjects has already been raised with him that are not in the timetable. That must make it difficult to argue that we are providing proper parliamentary scrutiny. Can he not realise that this debate ought to be at least as long as the debate on the Maastricht treaty, and that we should have a proper debate on transport, not least because the environmental connections with transport are crucial to the next generation? If the European Union does not deal with those issues, it will not be dealing with the proper issues. For that reason, I should like to have a very long debate on transport.

Jim Murphy: I am certainly of the view, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, that the themed debates on climate, energy and the single market will give hon. Members—and right hon. Members such as the right hon. Gentleman—the opportunity to discuss those issues.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: Of course I will take some more interventions, but with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, not four simultaneously. I am still only a quarter of the way through page 1 of my brief, and all that I have done is to offer the introductory quote from the Prime Minister. I have another 12 and three quarter pages left. I give way to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful for the Minister's courtesy and generosity in giving way. Will he confirm that if the Government were to lose a vote on a substantive amendment when we discuss the Bill in Committee, it would have an effect on the Bill, but that most of our time will be spent discussing Government motions? Even in the unlikely event that the Government lose a vote on a motion, that will have no effect whatever on the Bill. We are not actually discussing the Bill when we are discussing a Government motion. It is hardly the line-by-line debate that the Prime Minister promised.

Jim Murphy: As the debate progresses during the forthcoming weeks, we will have the opportunity to discuss both the Government's approach to Europe generally and specific proposals in the Bill and the treaty of Lisbon. The hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on his observation as we progress in our proceedings on the treaty and the Bill; he will see whether it is indeed a fair criticism.

Greg Hands: May I come back to the charter of fundamental rights, as it is peculiar that specific time has not be set aside to debate it? The Minister will recall that last week, I intervened on him and asked him about the fact that the previous Prime Minister had said that the charter of fundamental rights would not apply in the United Kingdom at all. However, the Minister told the European Scrutiny Committee on 2 October that the protocol
	"was a statement of how the Charter provisions will apply in the UK".
	It is absolutely fundamental to the question whether the treaty is acceptable or not that we should debate whether the charter will take effect in the United Kingdom, and whether judgments by the European Court of Justice will have an impact on UK law or not.

Jim Murphy: Without wishing to repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, there is an opportunity, both in the themed debate on the single market, and in the debate on human rights, which includes the charter, to have a detailed conversation about those matters. Again—in Glasgow, we would say for the umpteenth time—may I repeat that the UK has neither sought nor achieved an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, which will apply in the UK? The position is very clear indeed.

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Jim Murphy: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) first, and then to his hon. Friend.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Under the Government proposals, we will debate Government amendments on a line-by-line basis for only an hour and a half. If those amendments are grouped, we would vote on them within that period. If we divide the House on three occasions, that would reduce the time for debating amendments to 45 minutes, although the subject may be as general and important as foreign, security and defence policy. Does that really discharge the Government's promise to scrutinise the treaty line by line—something on which I received personal assurances from two Foreign Secretaries and the previous Prime Minister?

Jim Murphy: May I make a little progress? I fully intend to deal with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will give way to him again at an appropriate point later. I hope that I can offer him some of the reassurance, at least on the surface, that he wishes to receive. I am not sure that I will convince him entirely about the approach we seek to take, but I will give way to him again a little later.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. He will be aware that the real issue of concern to the British people is the extent to which the treaty transfers further powers to the European Union. May I put it to him that, given those concerns, the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in which he suggests that there should be specific discussion of
	"the role and legal status of the EU institutions, including legal personality?"
	That goes to the heart of the case that has been made on the continent for a united states of Europe, which the Minister will accept ought to be the subject for specific debate in the House.

Jim Murphy: Again, I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. We are simply taking a different approach in seeking the most effective way to scrutinise issues related to the institutional debate. The Government, in the motion, have adopted an approach that focuses on themed debates, and have taken a different perspective from Opposition spokesmen. With your agreement, Mr. Speaker, we expect the debates on the environment, climate and development to allow ample opportunity for debate about the European structures relevant to those themed policy debates. That is reflected in some of the amendments that have been tabled, and the same applies to the single market and human rights and issues such as co-decisions and moves towards qualified majority voting. All those important EU institutional issues can be captured within the debate about European structures. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Gisela Stuart: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Angus Robertson: rose—

Jim Murphy: I will give way to my hon. Friend first, then to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the second time today, and then to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for the first time. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will then make some progress.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Minister help me, because he said earlier that there would be a vote on whether there should be a referendum or not when we debate clause 8 of the European Union (Amendment) Bill? According to his schedule, we would debate that on day 11. Is my understanding correct?

Jim Murphy: Yes.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I shall try to exercise restraint, because I am waiting to hear his arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has touched on the main point: the Government propose that a great deal of time should be spent on general debates and that one and a half hours should be spent on specific amendments, which is a radical change to the way in which we normally conduct a Committee of the whole House. We have lots of general debate on Europe, and if one allows four hours in which any comment on Europe or climate change is in order, the debate will go all over the place. We will then consider specific amendments, when we can address the detail. Just one and a half hours will be devoted to all the amendments on a subject, and most amendments will not be debated or voted on—I suspect that that will simply set off the upper House, which will debate them all over again. The Minister is having difficulty in moving on to his main argument, because he is finding it difficult to persuade us why we cannot have debates on amendments and why general topics chosen by the Government must take up the lion's share of the time.

Jim Murphy: As I have said, I will address the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little later. As we have said, this is a different approach to the scrutiny of a European treaty and the consideration of a European treaty Bill. This is the most effective way to scrutinise the Bill and the treaty, and I will reflect on how the new approach will work in practice later. The Government think that four and a half hours of open debate on themes and one and a half hours of debate on specific amendments is the right mix. Opposition Front Benchers have reached a different view, but according to a similar principle—they have suggested three hours of open debate and three hours for consideration in Committee.
	Given the way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) framed his question, I shall also respond to the point raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Wells. In principle, the new approach commands a degree of cross-party support, and we will be flexible and judge whether, given that this is an innovation, the allocation of four and a half hours and one and a half hours respectively is the right mix. We will seek to do that as the process evolves, and I hope to add more detail when I formally move the programme motion—all I have done so far is move this motion.

Angus Robertson: The Minister has been generous in outlining when certain subjects not listed in the Government's timetable motion should be debated. He knows that my party, the Scottish Government and I have long-standing problems on enshrining fisheries as an exclusive competence of the European Union, which does not appear in the timetable. Does he agree that there is at least the possibility of raising the issue of fisheries as an exclusive competence in the debate on day 7, which concerns
	"the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making"?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and I regularly cross swords, but we can make common cause on that point. I confirm that in the Government's view—it is, of course, for you to rule, Mr. Speaker—the themed debate on day 7 is the most appropriate opportunity to debate the EU institutional framework around fishing policy.

Richard Shepherd: The Minister is inverting our normal parliamentary procedures. Our way of scrutinising legislation in Committee is to go through the amendments, which are normally tabled by the Opposition in response to a proposal, one by one and then to consider clause stand part. That is the traditional way. Amendments to the text will allow us to get to the nitty-gritty of what the business is about. The new approach is flummery and a ruse, and it destroys the basis for the credibility that the Government are seeking in introducing this wretched treaty.

Jim Murphy: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; I shall outline the case in just a moment. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and then to the hon. Member for Stone. After that, I shall make progress.

Jon Trickett: It is no use the Minister praying in aid the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench for the novel procedure of having a generic debate first. He is not carrying many people from either side of the House in respect of the new procedure. It seems clear to me that the generic debates will be dominated by the Executive, as they will determine what will be debated, and then by those on the Opposition Front Bench. That will be at the expense of the rest of us—who want a proper debate, on amendments, driven by Members from both sides who wish to scrutinise the detail of the treaty and the Bill. The Minister is failing to carry us. He needs to offer a more convincing argument than his assertion that those on the Opposition Front Bench agree with him on the principle.

Jim Murphy: I accept my hon. Friend's point—I have not yet convinced him, but I have not yet managed to make my case. Although I know that my hon. Friend holds the Prime Minister's words in great affection, I accept that the quote in itself will not move him to agree with me. However, I hope to make my case.

Bob Spink: rose—

William Cash: rose—

Jim Murphy: I shall give way, for the final two occasions, to the hon. Member for Stone and then to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). After that, I shall make progress.

William Cash: Does the Minister agree that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is completely right about the importance of the amendments? The reason is simple: the amendments deal with implementation into United Kingdom law, whereas the motions set down deal with the question of policy. The Government have completely failed to understand that, in Committee, the House is not so concerned with the policy as with implementation into UK law. That is the crucial point—will the Minister at least accept that I am right on that?

Jim Murphy: I do not accept that. The process set out in the motion will give us the opportunity to discuss and scrutinise the treaty and the Bill in detail, whether or not there are amendments.

Bob Spink: rose—

Jim Murphy: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will then make some progress.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the gracious Minister. In the light of what he said about flexibility between the generic debate and the specific debate on amendments, will he at least give us an undertaking now that he will come to an agreement with those on the Opposition Front Bench to limit Front-Bench contributions in the generic debate, so that the Government are not seen to be over-dominating those debates?

Jim Murphy: That is a reasonable point, although I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the difficulty now is that I am a quarter of the way through the first page of my brief and we are already half an hour into the debate. However, the general sense of his point is fair; it is important that we have the right mix of Front-Bench and Back-Bench contributions. That is for the usual channels to bear in mind as they formalise the debate for each themed day.

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Jim Murphy: I shall make some progress. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Jim Murphy: To avoid a point of order, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Patrick Cormack: I was going to make this point: if the Minister has 12 pages left, would it not be better for him to sit down and have a longer winding-up speech? In that way, he could respond to the points made in the debate. Is that not a rather constructive suggestion?

Jim Murphy: I am sure that my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), would enjoy that opportunity, but I have to deny him it; I am going to work my way through these pages and set out the Government's case. I shall try to do so now. Although I will, of course, take further interventions, I want to make at least a little progress beyond page 1.
	Before you joined us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had just concluded the introductory quote from the Prime Minister in his post-European Council statement on 17 December— [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friends can read it in  Hansard tomorrow to aid their memories.
	On 17 December last year, the Government introduced the European Union (Amendment) Bill to give effect to the treaty of Lisbon in UK law, and the House will recall that the Bill received its Second Reading on 21 January this year, with a majority of 138. The Bill contains the essential elements to give effect to the Lisbon treaty in the UK and to give effect to the commitments that the Prime Minister has given to this House. In his post-European Council statement on 22 October, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government would, first, oppose further institutional change over the lifetime of this Parliament and the next, and, secondly, provide for parliamentary control over future use of any amending provisions that would alter the constitutional balance between the UK and the EU. The Bill does that.
	As for the specific motion before us, I wish to make some comments on the nature of the structured debate that is proposed, reflect on previous Committee provisions, offer some comment on the length of time that the Government consider to be appropriate in Committee, and identify the specific themes that the Government intend to—

Mark Harper: I want to draw the Minister back to something that he said earlier. When he was questioned on the time split, he seemed to say that we would see how things went. Is he therefore suggesting that the Government will take a view during the debate, and if they decide that the time balance is unsatisfactory, they may return to the House with a revised motion to vary the way that the debate is progressing to reflect better the mood of the House?

Jim Murphy: I will deal with those points a little later, because I intend to make some comments that will perhaps reassure the hon. Gentleman.
	Let me turn to the need for a structured consideration of the Bill. The approach that we set out in the business motion ensures that we have a structured debate around the key themes of the Lisbon treaty and enough time to debate the relevant amendments. The Government are clear that the best way to achieve that is through structured consideration in Committee, with debates organised around those themes. As the House knows, Bills implementing amending treaties are short, and in the past Members have had to be ingenious to construct selectable amendments to enable debate on a given treaty. As a result, the structure of debates has often been confusing. In this business motion, we aim to guarantee that Parliament can scrutinise the Lisbon treaty. The bulk of the treaty will be incorporated into UK law through clause 2. The motion enables Members to debate the benefits of the Lisbon treaty for the UK and the international community through a series of themed debates on substantive motions. The House will, in addition, have plenty of time to consider amendments, following the usual procedures for Committee of the whole House. A clear structure of that type also means that we have sufficient time allocated to discuss the key issues and general principles as well as detailed questions.
	The Government tabled this motion last week to ensure that those inside and outside the House have a clear timetable that sets out when important issues relating to the treaty will be considered in the Committee. That can only be a further improvement to the way in which we scrutinise the treaty.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: In that case, could my hon. Friend answer this simple question: who decided which important subjects that are affected by the treaty should be left out of the discussion?

Jim Murphy: The Government have framed the themed debates in the broadest possible terms. In respect of transport, as I have already said to my hon. Friend, there will an opportunity, with the indulgence of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, to discuss those matters in the debate on the single market, climate change and energy. She will also know that there is an opportunity on days 9, 10 and 11 to discuss wider specific amendments to the Bill.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the provisional timetable for the European Union (Amendment) Bill has been circulated by the Chief Whip—I assume that that has also happened on the Opposition Benches—and it is clear that the debate on 30 January is specifically on energy. May I ask you to say, from the Chair, whether it would be in order for me to make a detailed speech about all the aspects of transport affected if the subject for debate is energy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that I can give an entirely definitive reply to the hon. Lady. It will depend very much on how the debate goes. She acknowledged that this is a particular procedure that has been devised, and the Chair will obviously be bound by it.

Jim Murphy: In drafting the motion, we also looked with great care at the provisions for previous Committees. There are lessons to be learned, to which I have already alluded, from previous EU debates on the timing and structure of parliamentary scrutiny. Committee proceedings lasted four days on the Single European Act, five days on the treaty of Amsterdam and just three days on the treaty of Nice. Of course, with great hesitation I refer to the organisational debacle that was the Maastricht treaty process, which lasted for 23 separate days. An analysis of previous debates also shows that the majority of hon. Members throughout the House consider the Committee debates, with the Chamber being the property of a few lonely souls, as something to be avoided.
	I turn now to the length of time in the motion and the effect of it.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When there is a Committee of the whole House, is it correct to say that the House is the property of a few lonely souls? No group of Members can take control of the House of Commons in Committee because it is by definition open to all Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must know that the propensity of hon. Members to attend the Chamber for a Committee of the whole House will depend upon their intensity of feeling on the subject.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, Sir, that will depend also on what we are allowed to debate. In response to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), you gave an extremely honest answer, but you said you could not guarantee that transport could be debated when energy is the subject of the debate. This afternoon, two prominent Labour Members have asked for debates on transport; it is a crucial issue that affects us all. If you cannot guarantee that a subject can be debated, Sir, can you not tell the Government to go away and think again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair might often be tempted in that direction by hon. Members, but the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not possible. The matters that can be debated by the House in Committee will depend on the amendments that are put down. If they are in order, it will be possible for them to be debated. I do not think that I can go further than that at this stage.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you not the custodian and guardian of the Back-Bench interest in this House? I personally believe that you are. I strongly oppose the procedure that the Government are seeking to force upon us, and the time that they are allowing for debate in Committee is so limited that it will not enable those who are deeply interested to come back for a second time, which is what would typically be the case in a Bill Committee, either on the floor of this House or otherwise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair because the motion before the House sets down a procedure, and an amendment to that procedure has been tabled. Those are the confines of the debate, and it is clear already that there is more than one point of view in this House about the way in which this matter should be decided. That is the matter for substantive debate at present, and it is not a matter of order for the Chair.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you help the House? If we agree to this motion, it will govern the Committee proceedings. Can you tell us what restrictions there will be on debating matters on Report that will have been covered, in part or more extensively, through amendments in Committee on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, all stages of the Bill are governed by the motion before the House.

Jim Murphy: My earlier point about lonely souls, which instigated the first in the latest points of order, was simply a reflection that any objective reading of the history of the Maastricht treaty would show that Members from both sides of the House were coming into the Chamber with flasks and sandwiches to sustain them through an evening's debate.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be out of order to come into this Chamber with a flask and sandwiches. Will you instruct the Minister on the procedures of this House, which he does not appear to understand?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that for any such thing to happen, it would have to be discussed first and a recommendation would have to be made by the Modernisation Committee.

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman is raising a point of order, we are back to the substance of the debate. I call Mr. Murphy who may, in turn, cede to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Jim Murphy: I happily give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister had already given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Things are moving so fast.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister has so far not made an argument in favour of his new procedure. He has merely asserted what it is. He has gone on to say that it is what it is because of what he has been told were the deficiencies in previous Committees. I was involved in all four of the treaties that he described, and I do not recognise what he is saying. The Single European Act and the Amsterdam and Nice treaties were comparatively non-controversial and were therefore taken in quite a short time.
	Maastricht is the best comparison with this treaty. I took part in the Maastricht debates as a Minister, and the Minister's description of the problem is a complete transformation of history. The problem for the Government was that the House, as a whole, would not allow us to waive the 10 o'clock rule. We could bring debates to an end only when we could get a closure, which was rarely. Only when everyone had spoken themselves into exhaustion could we get a timetable at all. That was inconvenient for the Government, which I suspect is what has weighed most heavily on the Minister's mind. It meant that the subject matter was chosen by the Members of the House, who argued about it for as long as they decided. We moved on from subject to subject as the House allowed us. The votes were all the difficult ones on amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now making a speech. He has probably put his point across.

Jim Murphy: I look forward to having the opportunity to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman make the rest of that speech a little later in our proceedings.
	Let me return to the points that I was making about detailed scrutiny. The proposal in the motion before us will allow 36 hours of detailed amendments and scrutiny. That compares with 18 hours on the Nice treaty, 12 hours on Amsterdam and 15 to 18 hours on the Single European Act. It compares favourably with previous motions.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: I shall make some progress on the subject of the length of time available and the effect of the motion, and shall then come back to hon. Members.
	As I said earlier, the number of days that we have set aside for the scrutiny of the treaty and the Bill are the same as the total number of days spent on the Single European Act and the Nice and Amsterdam treaties. The substance of the motion is in the table that has been provided to the House. Paragraphs (1) to (6) of the motion include definitions and apply or disapply various Standing Orders.
	I shall now turn briefly to the subject of the table and make some technical remarks.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister explain why Standing Order No. 24 is being disapplied? Standing Order No. 24 permits an emergency debate. It is extremely difficult to get it to the Floor of the House, but the whole point of an emergency debate is that it must be taken there and then.

Jim Murphy: The purpose of setting aside proceedings under Standing Order No. 24 is to protect the time available to the House for the scrutiny of the Bill and discussion of the treaty. The Government's intention, shown in the motion, is to protect timetabled scrutiny of the Bill. It is the type of thing that the hon. Gentleman ought to welcome, and I think that he has slightly misunderstood the point.
	Paragraph (2) states that the proceedings on an allotted day will be taken in accordance with the table. Paragraph (3) applies existing procedures for programme motions and paragraph (4) protects the proceedings in respect of Standing Order No. 24. Paragraph (5) disapplies the rule on anticipation and will allow the House to consider the substantive motions that the Government table for each themed debate. Paragraph (6) provides a mechanism for the motion to be amended or supplemented at some later stage in our proceedings. That deals with some of the points that hon. Members have made. An amendment can be taken at the start of an allotted day as long as the total time available to the House is not reduced.

Bernard Jenkin: The Minister makes a mistake in saying that suspending Standing Order No. 24 will protect the scrutiny of the Bill according to the timetable. Nowhere does the motion state that the 10 o'clock rule, the 7 o'clock rule or the 6 o'clock rule will override the motion. On the contrary, if I am right, the motion will override any Standing Order that would normally limit debate. A Standing Order debate would therefore merely be held before the European debate for that day. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Minister has made a mistake.

Jim Murphy: That is not the case. The moment of interruption can be extended—that deals with the hon. Gentleman's reasonable concerns and I hope that it reassures him. A supplementary business motion amending the table can be taken under paragraph (6). It can be taken forthwith, if it does not reduce the overall time available to the House, and it can be tabled as late as the night before the relevant allotted day.
	We all acknowledge that the process for scrutinising the Bill is new, although Front Benchers accept it in principle. We wish to signal that we will be flexible and try to get the balance exactly right between a session of four and a half hours and one of one and a half hours, and two sessions of three hours. As we balance the interest in the themed debates with the weight and relevance of the various amendments, the division could occasionally be between three hours and three hours. At this stage, our early assessment is that the four and a half and one and a half hour split is the correct way to proceed.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. I am sure he knows that, under the new procedure for Public Bill Committees, formerly Standing Committees, a generic debate can happen at the beginning of the sitting. I have had the pleasure of serving on two Public Bill Committees—that on the Sale of Student Loans Bill and that on the National Insurance Contributions Bill—which took advantage of that, whereas the Committee that considered the Finance Bill last year did not. Evidence can be taken and members of the Committee can hold a generic discussion. In my estimation, following that route shortened the time that was taken overall in the Committees on which I had the pleasure of serving. I salute the Government for trying to replicate it in the Committee of the whole House. However, I urge my hon. Friend to keep the split under review because there may be too much in the in the first half and not enough in the second. The general approach of a generic discussion is eminently sensible and may shorten proceedings on the Floor of the House.

Jim Murphy: I share my hon. Friend's assessment. He underlines the importance of my point, which is that we intend to be as flexible as is feasible to ensure that debate is balanced between the Bill, the treaty, the themes and specific amendments and that the temperature and wishes of the House are respected.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again—I know that he is a reasonable chap. The purpose of Standing Order No. 24 is that an emergency debate must be held then and there. It cannot be put off for 10 hours until after the European debate. Why has the Minister switched things around so that an emergency debate would have to be held after the European debate?

Jim Murphy: What we are seeking to do is protect the time available to the House to scrutinise the treaty and the Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman raises his point out of genuine concern for the organisation of the business of the House, but it is not an observation shared by all his colleagues.

Richard Shepherd: rose—

Jim Murphy: It is always dangerous to pray the hon. Gentleman in aid, but I am happy to do so on this occasion.

Richard Shepherd: Usually, the following day is when the provision comes into effect, but the point remains: if there were a nuclear incident that threatened the principal cities of this country, that would clearly meet all the criteria for an emergency debate. In fact, the Government might insist that that debate be held here on that day, if it is not initiated by a member of the Opposition. That is the point of an emergency debate. Delaying an emergency debate until the first business on the following day shows that it has precedence over the business that the Government are so insistent on protecting, because Standing Order No. 24 is conceived for something of immediacy and great peril or something that meets the other criteria, and it should not be set aside by the motion.

Jim Murphy: What we have said in the motion is that we will approach the issue in a flexible way that ensures not only the right balance between amendments and discussion on themes, but that the motion can be revisited on a daily basis. On Standing Order No. 24, the fact is that the House, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker— [ Interruption. ] The House will be able to consider how to order its business on a daily basis. If we had not sought to protect the timing and the business of the House in the appropriate way, I assume that the House would have taken a dim view of our not including the relevant paragraph in the motion.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I encourage the Minister not to be too stubborn on this point? The point about an emergency debate is that it is, in the House's and Mr. Speaker's judgment, on an emergency. Although we are all anxious to protect time for European business, it is not necessarily any more important than any of the other business that the House considers. The only question is not how long there should be for European business, but whether it should come after an emergency debate that has been approved. The Minister would reassure the House if he showed a little more flexibility now, rather than at an unknown future date, on a point that does not go to the heart of the Government's strategy.

Jim Murphy: I have sought on three or four occasions to emphasise how flexible we wish to be on all such issues. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a former Foreign Secretary, that we would, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with Mr. Speaker's indulgence, enable that degree of flexibility whenever and wherever possible, either in the House's interest or the national interest.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper).

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you explain for the benefit of the House whether if the motion deciding how a debate under Standing Order No. 24 should take place were passed, it would be within the power of the Chair to allow that debate to take place before consideration of the Bill or afterwards, or would you have been given very clear instructions by the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, the Chair would not have that flexibility if the House had decided in favour of the motion on the Order Paper.

Jim Murphy: The House would have the opportunity, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker's agreement, to curtail deliberations at the point of emergency, if it so wished.

Rob Marris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right, Sir, in thinking that Standing Order No. 24 is entitled "General debates" and that rule (2)(b) says that, following a vote by the House to have a general debate,
	"the Speaker shall announce either...the length of the debate and the time at which it is to be held"
	and so on? Is that not the wording of Standing Order No. 24?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The fact of the matter is that the situation will be governed by the motion before the House, if the House approves it. That alters the situation, and that is the case that the Minister is arguing.

Jim Murphy: rose—

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have just given an extremely clear ruling. Does this not amount to the fact that, if the House approves the motion before us today, we shall be putting ourselves into a straitjacket from which there is no release?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is difficult for the Chair to interpret some of the nuances of the debate here, but the fact is that I have given a clear ruling on the meaning of the motion. As far as I can see, however, there is nothing to prevent another variation motion being put forward if the circumstances demanded it.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that same point of order?

William Cash: Very much so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an earlier point of order, I raised the question of the implementation of United Kingdom law. On the basis of what has just emerged from these exchanges, I understand that we are now being restricted to having four and a half hours' debate on policy and only one and a half hours on the implementation of law. I hope you will agree that that is an inappropriate use of the manner in which programme motions are arrived at.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that did not follow sequentially from the previous point of order. Nor was it a point of order; he was getting to the very substance of the debate that we are trying to progress.

John Gummer: Further to an earlier point of order, which was a point of order, may I just make sure that I have got this right? Am I right in saying that, if the House passes this motion, it places itself at the mercy of the Government as to whether an amending motion may be proposed? Would that be true not only of this motion but, should the Government deem it reasonable to do so, to changing the periods of time allowed for general debates and for amendments? Should we not therefore say to the Minister that, in order to carry through his desire to be flexible, he would need to give us something more than a general promise to be kind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question—which was a point of order—is yes. In the second part, however, he veered into the substance of the debate, which is not a matter on which I can rule.

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the point about a Standing Order No. 24 debate, would not passing this motion result in a significant change? At the moment, the decision whether to have such a debate is in the hands of Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. If this motion is passed, we shall have to rely on the Government to introduce another motion to enable such a debate to take place. That is quite a significant change, which is why the Minister should rethink this motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Standing Order would still apply, but there would be a question as to the timing of any such debate. That is the distinction.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a very helpful ruling, but surely the decision on timing would be taken away from Mr. Speaker and given to the Government, because only they would be able to introduce a motion to override and contradict the motion before the House today. The discretion over timing that resides solely with the Speaker would therefore be removed. The Minister's desire to be flexible would depend entirely on the wishes of the Government at the time, and not on Mr. Speaker. Is not that a severe erosion of Mr. Speaker's discretion and powers? I suggest that the House adjourn and come back to the matter after further discussions with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's point of order is yes. In the latter part of his question, however, he was debating the substance of the motion that is before the House. If the House disagrees with the motion, it can of course decide not to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman and one or two of his colleagues are now talking about what is at issue in the debate. We still have several hours left in which to pursue these matters.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In response to an earlier point of order, you made reference to the Modernisation Committee of this House, which considers changes to Standing Orders. You indicated—

Patrick Cormack: Flasks and sandwiches.

Nicholas Winterton: I am not worried about the sandwiches.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, you indicated that this was a matter for the Modernisation Committee. As I happen to be the senior Opposition Member on that Committee, let me put this question. If the Government wish to change Standing Orders or their interpretation, should they not, prior to putting a motion to do so before the House, actually refer it to such a Committee of this House? In fact, the House's integrity and independence, to which Standing Orders make an important contribution, is being affected by the Government business motion. It is an abuse of this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My earlier invocation of the Modernisation Committee was essentially related to flasks and sandwiches. What the hon. Gentleman is arguing now is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for substantial debate by the House. That debate is specific in its terms so it is now for hon. Members to devote themselves to discussing the merits or demerits of the motion. I am anxious not to find myself in a position where the Minister's contribution to the debate take second place to mine.

Jim Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.  [Interruption.] Before I make any further progress, I want to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton).

David Hamilton: I believe that my hon. Friend is being far too flexible, which is half the problem we have at the moment. Let me suggest that he get past page 3 so we can actually start debating what is going to happen— [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jim Murphy: I would like to make a little more progress, if hon. Members will allow me. They might like to look again at the detail of the table appended to the business motion, which refers to the latest time for conclusion, meaning that, if it so wishes and if there is a degree of co-operation, the House can conclude any of its deliberations much earlier. That applies to issues raised in the House or elsewhere. The time allocated is the latest time for conclusion, which is the most important point I would like to make about the table attached to the motion.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully and thinking about your rulings, which I fully understand. However, I would be grateful for your guidance. If I wished to order the suspension of the business of the House under Standing Order No. 24 while we are debating the other subject and if it had already been changed by provisions on the Order Paper, could I still do so? Will you also tell us whether such a motion as this has even been seen before in the House of Commons or ever used for any similar debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can respond to the hon. Lady's two points. First, as I understand it, the terms of the motion simply alter the timing of any Standing Order No. 24 debate, but the application of it is a separate matter. It is simply that the timing of any debate granted by Mr. Speaker would be affected by the motion. Will the hon. Lady remind me of her second question?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am enormously grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as this is an important matter. Will you please be kind enough to tell us whether you know of any other occasion on which this device has been used?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the answer to that is no. I hesitate in front of such a learned assembly to make an absolute definitive statement that such a device has never been used on any occasion. As far as I can best recall, however, I do not believe that a motion in these exact terms has been put before the House previously.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to bring you back to the first of the points put by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Could any Member stand up and propose a motion to negative this timing arrangement and reinstate the normal timing arrangement or would it have to be the Minister who did so, given that he made the original arrangements? Could we achieve that as individual Members if we could get a majority to support us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not the first Member to seek to draw the Chair into the substance of the debate. I suggest to him that that is the direction in which this process is moving. I can give only certain rulings. I have tried to help the House by making clear what I see as the distinction between the rights of the House under Standing Order No. 24 and how they might be affected by the motion. I suggest that it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to pursue the Minister on this matter. It is the Minister who must reply, because this is the motion that he is commending to the House.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is in order—I know the hon. Gentleman.

William Cash: I am well aware of you too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be certain to stay in order. Page 9 of "Erskine May" is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It says of programme orders:
	"Though such orders are usually more all-enveloping than guillotines... and they remain a controversial innovation, their details may often be settled with more agreement than guillotines enjoyed."
	Would you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is indeed not only an innovation but is extremely controversial—more controversial than the arrangement that we had before?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that my premonition was right. That is a question for the Minister to answer.

Jim Murphy: Thank you for your wise words and guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Let me return to the debate, and perhaps make some progress. The House will be delighted to know that there are only two more—

Mark Harper: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: I am going to make some progress.
	The table sets out the proceedings on each day. For the first eight days, we will start with substantive motions relating to each of the themes. The Government also thought it important to provide for the substantive motions to be amendable. Following a themed debate, the House will consider amendments relating to that theme. Once it has completed the themed debates, the remaining Committee days will follow the usual procedures for a Committee of the whole House.
	The themed debates will cover the key areas of the Lisbon treaty. Rather than being abstract debates, they will be grouped under recognisable headings covering the necessary component parts of the treaty, but also putting them in the context of the Government's objectives and wider European Union enlargement. The themes contained in the table and the motion are justice and home affairs, energy, human rights, the single market, common foreign and security policy, international development, EU institutions and decision making, and climate change.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister mentioned energy. There is only one new article on energy in the treaty, which the Government opposed on the correct ground that there are powers in the existing treaties to liberalise the energy market. Why is this much-compressed timetable to include a whole day of debate on energy, and no debate on provisions relating to the powers of national Parliaments, which go to the root of the relationship between the House of Commons and the European Union? Is this not a further illustration of the fact that the whole timetable motion is more about the Government's policy objectives than about the legal powers of the House and the country, which are what we should be debating?

Jim Murphy: Not at all. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will seek to remove that EU competence on energy as we go through the process, and I look forward to debating the amendment in question. However, a co-ordinated European approach to energy is of vital national importance to the United Kingdom, not least in the light of the challenge in Russia, energy supply and diversity of routes to market. The policy arises from the Hampton Court agenda on liberalisation of the energy market. It is in our interest in the context of strategic safety and security of routes to market, diversity of supply and renewables.
	We make no apology for proposing a full day's debate on energy. I think that Conservative Front Benchers have also proposed a full day's debate, which suggests a strong acceptance of the importance of energy policy across the European Union.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Jim Murphy: I will make some progress.
	The allocation and division of subjects has been carefully considered to ensure sufficient time to debate all the key issues. We have, for example, singled out human rights, for which we have set aside a whole day in a self-standing sitting that will cover provisions on the charter of fundamental rights. There will also be a full sitting to consider the institutional provisions. It is also worth clarifying that, although the bulk of the treaty—the themes I have just mentioned—will fall to be considered under clause 2, other themes will, of course, fall under subsequent clauses.

Jon Trickett: The charter lies at the core of my concerns about the treaty. Will the Minister undertake to look carefully again at the timetable that has been outlined on the day devoted to human rights, in order to give a proper debate on the charter and particularly chapter IV on solidarity, which the Government appear to want to avoid at all costs?

Jim Murphy: I have already given an assurance, which I hope reassures my hon. Friend, that we intend to be flexible about the timing and balance of themed debates and discussions of specific amendments. I also hope that I will be able to reassure my hon. Friend about the nature of the charter of fundamental rights and the fact that it applies fully in the UK—that the charter records rather than creates new rights, and that the protocol does not equal an opt-out from it in any sense whatever.

Colin Burgon: I am rapidly advancing in age so perhaps I miss things now and again, but will the Minister reassure me that there is no opt-out protocol for this country and Poland from the provisions in chapter IV on solidarity?

Jim Murphy: We have made it clear that we do not have an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. What we have negotiated is legally binding in protocol and it is within the competence of the European Court of Justice or any domestic court to strike down any UK law. The charter of fundamental rights will apply in every EU nation—all 27 member states—but I look forward to discussing this issue in great detail with my hon. Friends over the next few weeks.

James Clappison: The Minister did not respond to the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about when we will have time to debate the powers of this House in relation to Europe under the changes in the treaty. The Government's statement on the reform treaty contains no section on energy, but there is a long section on the role of Parliaments in which we are told that national Parliaments will be given a direct say in the EU's law-making procedures for the first time. As matters stand, we are not even given a say in our own law-making procedures. Under this timetable motion, when will there be an opportunity to debate the position of this House?

Jim Murphy: There is an opportunity to discuss that during the full-day debate on institutions. There will also be an opportunity in open day debates, which are not themed, on clauses 3 to 7 to have detailed discussions of every amendment that meets the approval of the Speaker and is brought before the House.
	The Government have listened to requests for time to discuss a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I am happy to confirm that there will be time to debate, and vote on, that; there will be a hook to do so under consideration of clause 8.

Bernard Jenkin: Supposing we reach the debate on the referendum, we know that under the timetable motion Mr. Speaker will not be able to grant an emergency debate on that day, but will there be anything to prevent the Government from making a statement?

Jim Murphy: I have already given a detailed response to that. We are seeking to protect the time available to the House by allowing an extension beyond the moment of interruption. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has made an important point. The Government frequently put on statements to delay and thereby compress a debate on a main subject later in the day. Given that the Minister has tried to reassure us throughout his speech that there will be time for the House to debate these important issues, will he give an assurance on behalf of the Government that there will be no attempt to make statements on matters that are not of the greatest importance to the House? Alternatively, will he be willing to extend the debate beyond the 10 o'clock limit?

Jim Murphy: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman shares the view that, as was alluded to in an earlier exchange, it is important that, where there is an issue of great national and international importance, the opportunity exists for the Government to make a statement on it—indeed, they have a responsibility to do so. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that time is protected as part of the motion, and that the moment of interruption can indeed be extended. I think that we have struck the correct balance on that point.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have already heard from you, very helpfully and clearly, that this motion prevents Mr. Speaker, in the usual course of business, from allowing an emergency debate under the relevant Standing Orders concerning the correct timing of such a debate. Would that also apply to the timing of a statement, or would it still be completely in the gift of the Government to interrupt vital scrutiny of this Bill with a statement or many statements of their own choosing—whether or not there happens to be an emergency—just because it suits their political agenda to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I understand it—I do not want to tread on the Minister's ground—the Government's motion envisages that if there are statements or Mr. Speaker grants an urgent question, the time devoted to consideration of this Bill is protected. That is clear, and I think that the Minister has himself just said that.

Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to build on that, and the House agrees entirely with your interpretation. The problem is, however, that the Minister uses conditional language such as "may be". He has to give a commitment to the House that he is prepared to move the 10 o'clock motion, for example, on the day of business in question. Is there a commitment to do that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, but a question directly to the Minister, which he may choose to answer.

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order, but if the hon. Gentleman has a fresh point of order, I shall call him.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice that on allotted days 1 to 8, there is indeed protected time for debate. However, there is no protected time on allotted day 9, and on day 11—the very important day on which we can debate clause 8 and the referendum—reference is made simply to the moment of interruption; there is no protected time period. Am I right in thinking that if, on the day when we will debate the very important issue of a referendum—the most important, in the eyes of many—there were two Government statements and the normal rules of the House were in place, we could have a very compressed debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman nearly gave the game away when he tried to pursue the point of order of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My answer has to be the same—this is something for the Minister to explain to the House if he wishes to gain a majority for his motion.

Jim Murphy: I have already made it clear on a number of occasions that the Government fully intend, where necessary—because of a statement or matters of that nature—to extend the moment of interruption. The situation is also set out in the table regarding themed days; reference is made to there being four and a half hours after commencement, and one and a half hours after commencement on specific days. It is important to make that point very clearly. This is about protecting a core number of hours each and every day, and I give the House the very clear commitment that the Government intend to protect the opportunity to scrutinise both the Bill and the treaty in great detail. When it is necessary to have a statement—Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that on occasion, such things are important—the timetable is protected.

Mark Harper: It cannot have escaped the Minister's notice—I am sure that this is deliberate—that on all the other days, there is indeed a fixed period of protected time for this House, except on the day when we will debate clause 8 and the referendum. The Minister might have noticed that that is probably the single most controversial thing that we will talk about. No amount of protected time is allocated for that day, and we are simply relying on the Minister's good nature to protect the time. The House would be much more comfortable if day 10 and, in particular, day 11 had a protected number of hours of business. I should be grateful if the Minister tabled an amendment to that effect.

Jim Murphy: We have said that we intend to be flexible; there will be an opportunity to table revisions to this timetable each day. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made an important point about the length of Front-Bench speeches—we have now been debating for an hour and 20 minutes—and the issue raised by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) is also important. We will pay great attention to it, and we will ensure that time is protected for that clause 8 debate on the referendum.
	I wish to bring my comments close to a conclusion, because time is slightly against us and we still have to hear from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Jim Murphy: I shall, however, give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the Minister. Nobody could criticise him for his performance this afternoon—he has tried to give way whenever possible. He has been on his feet, although he has been up and down, for almost an hour and a half, so how can he tell the House with any degree of conviction that an hour and a half, or even four and a half hours, is long enough to debate important constitutional and controversial issues? He has needed his hour and a half. If we were dealing with an allocated time, no Back-Bench speeches would have been made—there would have been no speeches other than the Minister's—and that illustrates what a tight rein the Government are placing on the House.

Jim Murphy: As I said—about 45 minutes ago—the issue is whether the right balance on themed days is four and a half hours and one and a half hours or, as the Opposition Front-Bench team suggests, three hours and three hours. I have indicated, on nearly a dozen occasions, the Government's intention to be flexible. Where the temperature and will of the House is behind altering the balance, we would be minded to do so. I envisage that, on occasion, where a limited number of amendments or a substantial number of relevant amendments have been tabled, such a change would take place. The three-hour split might, on occasion, be appropriate.

Philip Davies: May I bring the Minister back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean? The Minister is saying that he intends that the time will be protected for important matters such as debating the referendum, but the Government intended to hold a referendum on this treaty and have backed out of that. I am sure that he will understand that there is a bit of scepticism on the Conservative Benches about these intentions. Please may we have a guarantee that the time will be protected, rather than be given these warm intentions, which this Government have broken time after time?

Jim Murphy: I think there is more than a good degree of Euroscepticism on the Conservative Benches, rather than just some Euroscepticism.

Ian Davidson: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: On cue. I hope that my hon. Friend's leg has improved since Christmas.

Ian Davidson: The Minister mentioned Euroscepticism, and I thought I just had to rise to that. He said that he wanted to draw his remarks to a close so that the House could hear from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. May I clarify why it is necessary to do so? I understood that the Liberal party had outsourced its policy making on this issue to the Government and was simply in their pocket on it.

Jim Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the typical ingenuity with which he digs at the Lib Dems as only he is able. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, who divided the House a little earlier, will be able to speak for himself, at great length, a little later. I am conscious of the fact that there are only four and a half hours of this debate left in which to allow him to speak, so I shall make some progress.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim Murphy: I have given way to the hon. Member for Stone and other hon. Members on perhaps a couple of dozen occasions, so I am now going to make some progress.
	The Government hope and expect that there will be a chance to debate the policy and issues as comprehensively as possible, drawing in a range of contributions from both sides of the House. There will also be a shorter time allocated afterwards on the technical amendments, which will benefit from the context of the wider discussion during the debate. The Business of the House motion, as I have already said, allows the proportion of time on a given day to be altered. I am happy to give the undertaking that we will consider suggestions put forward today and subsequently about the balance of time allotted, within the parameters set out in the motion.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way on that point?  [ Interruption. ]

Jim Murphy: I am urged not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but the kinder part of my spirit has taken over and I shall do so.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister and I am sure that he will wish to consider my point when reviewing the arrangements. So far, discussion has concentrated on the length of time available for the referendum clause—which is of course vital—but tucked away in the same column are the new clauses. As the Minister will know, I have tabled two new clauses—one on the Bill of Rights, which goes to the heart of proceedings in this House and the importance to be attached to them, and one on the supremacy of Parliament, which is also extremely important. For those to be put into the same category as the referendum would place an enormous time pressure on the debate. I hope that the Minister will review that situation.

Jim Murphy: As I have already said, we will listen to all reasonable suggestions on such matters. Days 9, 10 and 11 give the opportunity for such debates, and they are not themed.
	When we compare the Government's approach to that of other European countries and their parliamentary ratification process—Ireland alone intends to hold a referendum, because of its domestic constitutional requirements—I would put the UK on the top rung, given the quantity of time allowed and the potential quality of the debate that we intend to have. The motion represents a comprehensive, efficient and structured programme for scrutiny of the Bill. It will provide Members and those outside the House with greater clarity on, predictability of and control over the proceedings. I hope that it will ensure that the crucial process is fully mainstream, with participation on both sides of the House and detailed scrutiny of the major themes of the treaty. I commend the motion to the House.

William Hague: I beg to move, in line 24, leave out from 'TABLE' to end and add—
	
		
			  Allotted  Day  Proceedings  Latest time for conclusion 
			 1 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the following matters: asylum and migration policy.' 3 hours after commencement 
			
			  (B) Committee on the Bill: any selected amendments to Clause 1 and the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill; any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 3 hours after commencement 
			
			 2 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the following matters: fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing and human trafficking.' 3 hours after commencement 
			
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 3 hours after commencement 
			 3 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy.' 3 hours after commencement 
			
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to energy. 3 hours after commencement 
			 4 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the economy, social security and public services.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the economy, social security and public services. 3 hours after commencement 
			 5 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning human rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to human rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 3 hours after commencement 
			 6 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market.' 3 hours after commencement 
			
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the single market. 3 hours after commencement 
			
			 7 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning foreign policy.' 3 hours after commencement 
			
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to foreign policy. 3 hours after commencement 
			 8 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning security and defence policy.' 3 hours after commencement 
			
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to security and defence policy. 3 hours after commencement 
			
			 9 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning international development.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to international development. 3 hours after commencement 
			 10 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 3 hours after commencement 
			 11 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the role and legal status of the EU institutions, including legal personality.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 3 hours after commencement 
			 12 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the distribution of competencies between the EU institutions and Member States.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 3 hours after commencement 
			 13 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning national parliaments.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 3 hours after commencement 
			 14 (A) Motion—'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning climate change.' 3 hours after commencement 
			  (B) Committee on the Bill—any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to climate change, remaining amendments to Clause 2 and the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. 3 hours after commencement 
			 15 Committee on the Bill—Clauses 3 to 7.  
			 16 Committee on the Bill—Clauses 3 to 7, so far as not completed on Allotted Day 15. The moment of interruption. 
			 17 Committee on the Bill—Clause 8, the Schedule New Clauses and New Schedules. The moment of interruption. 
			 18 Remaining proceedings on the Bill. 6 hours after commencement.' 
		
	
	The Foreign Secretary obviously decided that he would be too busy in Brussels to attend the debate today, and the Minister for Europe will now know why. The Foreign Secretary probably anticipated better than others the difficulty that would arise. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) just made a valid point. The Minister has taken an hour and a half to respond to valid and legitimate interventions —and not only from Opposition Members—but the same time is meant to be allotted to the consideration of amendments on vast tracts of the Bill. He said that he would be sensitive to the will of the House and flexible on the time, and he should concede—although he will not—that the will of the House as represented by those hon. Members in their places today is that this motion should be withdrawn and replaced with one that shows greater consideration of the wishes of many hon. Members.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because I can tell the Minister that unless he allows for her opinion, his life will be a misery for weeks to come.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I do hope that that is right. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, is it incorrect that his Front-Bench colleagues agree with the motion on the Order Paper? If not, was he consulted about the use of Standing Order No. 24?

William Hague: We certainly do not agree with the motion, and we will vote against it. We will, of course, vote for our amendment, not because we agree with any of the procedures involved but because we wish to propose an amendment that ought to be acceptable to the Government and that would address many of Members' concerns about the time available for consideration of amendments. We are no fans of the procedure employed in the motion or of the constraints that it sets on debate. We will vote to lift some of those constraints, and we will vote against the motion. I hope that that makes things clear to the hon. Lady.
	In his speech, the Minister achieved a remarkable feat, for which I envy him: in a debate on European matters, he achieved complete unanimity between my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I have striven for years to bring that about, and it has taken only one and a half hours of procedural shambles from the Government finally to achieve it. For a Minister who said that he was going to use these debates to create divisions in the Conservative party, it is not exactly an auspicious beginning.
	The Minister also performed a number of interesting U-turns in the course of his speech. On the motion to which the Government ought to have given so much thought, and to which they were so attached that they put it on the Order Paper for approval, he now says that they will revisit the time allocated on a daily basis. However, the debates on the treaty start tomorrow. The debate on the charter of fundamental rights, which his hon. Friends rightly asked him about—the motion calls them debates on human rights—are next Tuesday. He said that he would be flexible and perhaps place new motions on the Order Paper about the matter, but he does not have very long to do so, given the timetable that the Government have adopted.
	The Minister conceded to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) that on day 11 the time for debate will be protected. Day 11 may of course include the important debate on a referendum, and given the Government's flagrant breach of their election promise on that subject, that is a welcome concession. However, his biggest U-turn of all was on a policy matter. He completed the Government's 180° turn of the past seven months by saying that the Government had neither sought nor claimed to have achieved an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. Many of us remember Mr. Tony Blair, in his last week as Prime Minister, standing at the Dispatch Box and saying:
	"It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs."—[ Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 37.]

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend think that the reason why the Minister needs only an hour and a half for amendments on each of the topics is that the Government have only one argument—"We've given the powers away, we'll drive the Bill through with Liberal Democrat votes and we don't care a damn what you think about it all"?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is certainly right that the Government want to drive the Bill through, although I suspect that this evening they will not have even the Liberal Democrats' votes, so I shall not be as rude about them as I usually am. No doubt the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will make his case in a moment—or for most of the evening, in all probability.
	The arguments employed by the Government on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny of the EU constitutional treaty have varied over the years depending on their policy at the time. In early 2004, having given up the argument that the EU constitution was of no real importance and only a tidying-up exercise, Tony Blair argued that it was too important for a referendum and of such vastness and complexity that it could be examined only by parliamentary debate. The idea of the former Prime Minister being deeply attached to parliamentary scrutiny and debate was always a little suspect, and it was soon fully reversed when he announced that the character of the subject's importance had changed and that it did require a national referendum.
	Notwithstanding their election commitments, the Government have returned to the second of those three positions, as the Prime Minister said at his press conference on 18 October that
	"this should now go to Parliament for very detailed discussion by Members of Parliament".
	On 14 December, he said that the treaty
	"will be debated in great precision in the House of Commons".
	It is a surprise to the House of Commons, as the Minister has discovered in the past hour and a half, that that great precision involves suspending Standing Order No. 24, leaving the Government in charge of decisions on emergency debates, rather the Speaker. Many of my hon. Friends have spoken very strongly against that proposal.

Gisela Stuart: In the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, he makes provision for a debate on national Parliaments. If he thinks that a referendum is so significant, why has he not made any special provisions for a debate on the subject in his amendment?

William Hague: There is every right to expect that on day 11, when we debate the commencement clause, there will be every opportunity to debate a referendum. With my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have tabled a new clause to that effect, so the House will have an opportunity to vote on the issue.

Nicholas Winterton: I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend said about what might happen on day 11 when we debate clause 8 and the referendum. Given that so much interest will be shown by Members from all parts of the House in the issue, is it not appropriate that that debate should go on for more than one day? A four-and-a-half-hour debate, and another one lasting one and a half hours, are totally inadequate for what the House considers a fundamental constitutional issue.

William Hague: I agree that we need to debate that matter as exhaustively as possible. I would like that debate to go on for many days and, indeed, the whole idea to be defeated. As I have pointed out, the amendment that we have tabled is simply an attempt to improve the Government's proposals such that the Government ought to find them acceptable, given the position that they have adopted. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have objected to the entire basis of the Government's motion are quite right to do so.

Patricia Hewitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify something? If and when the Lisbon treaty is ratified by this Parliament, is it his and his party's policy, should they win a future election, to reopen the treaty, hold a referendum and campaign for a no vote, despite the fact that the treaty will have been ratified, not only by our Parliament but by every other Parliament of every other EU member state?

William Hague: The right hon. Lady is hugely interested in what the next Conservative Government will do, and that mounting interest is wholly understandable, given the political situation in this country. We have debated that issue separately, and we will do so again. If I went into all of that, I suspect that I would be well out of order.
	It is against the background of the Government's stated objective of permitting very detailed discussion and consideration with great precision that the House must assess the procedural motion that they have tabled. At the same time that the Prime Minister made his commitment to very detailed discussion, Government spokesmen attempted to soften up the press by indicating that there would be 20 days of debate on the Floor of the House. That figure was reported in the Sunday newspapers on 21 October, directly after the Prime Minister's press conference on 18 October. Those reports were extensively repeated and reprinted, and the Government did nothing to deny them.
	It is notable that the Prime Minister, who renounced spin when he took office last June as if it were a disgusting aspect of Blairism with which he would never again contaminate prime ministerial hands, has resorted to it across a wide range of subjects, with many announcements being made outside this House rather than inside it. In the same manner, the Government encouraged the belief to grow that there would be 20 days' debate in the Commons on this treaty and that 20 days was a lot of time. In fact, 20 days is not so long for a measure that by general agreement fundamentally restructures the European Union, creates the important new positions of the European President of the Council of Ministers and the high representative for foreign affairs, removes national vetoes in dozens of different areas and provides for its own subsequent amendment without the passage of a further treaty.
	The Maastricht treaty, which, as my hon. Friends who intervened on the Minister pointed out, is the most direct comparator for this particular measure, was subject to 29 days' debate on the Floor of the House. That treaty involved, in the words of the Foreign Secretary,
	"a smaller transfer of power"—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 803.]
	than the treaty now before us. Furthermore, those debates took place when the parliamentary day was a good deal longer—for these purposes, it was normally twice as long as a parliamentary day today.

John Gummer: Not only were there 29 days, but the days were filled with debates on substantive motions and proper amendments. There was an opportunity for hon. Members to put their case and to vote on it, but this allocation of time is totally different.

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The time available for hon. Members to advance and then vote on their views was not two or three times greater, as it may appear at first sight, but dramatically greater than what the Government are proposing now. The Government propose only 12 days for Committee and all other stages on the Floor of the House. If we add to that last Monday's Second Reading debate, which was reduced to less than five hours because of the need for two Government statements on chaotic aspects of their administration of the country's affairs, and today's debate on the procedure to be employed and the time to be allocated, we reach a total of 14 days. Even leaving aside the Government's previous spin that there would be 20 days of debate and the statement in the House by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that there would be 15 days' debate, the scale of what is proposed, the breadth of the matters to be discussed and the controversy that is likely to be generated in many areas all mean that 12 days of six-hour debates do not constitute the detailed discussion and consideration with great precision to which the Prime Minister pledged the Government.

Jon Trickett: The Opposition amendment has some merit, because it suggests allocating more time on some of the detailed matters. In particular, the Opposition, unlike the Government, propose to debate the charter, which is at the core of the concerns held by me and many other Government Members. However, the right hon. Gentleman is following the Government in allocating time to what are effectively generic Government motions. Would it not have been better if he had entirely broken with that principle and stuck with the tradition of the House on debating Bills, which is to allow the debate to take place on amendments and not on Government motions?

William Hague: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. In framing our amendment, however, we tried not only to meet the anxieties expressed on both sides of the House, but to come up with a proposal that was acceptable to the Government and to Government supporters, and our amendment is a genuine attempt to come up with such a proposal. In the course of his remarks, the Minister conceded that it might be better to split the six hours between three hours of generic debate and three hours of amendments, which is the proposal in our amendment. The amendment appears to have been successful in that the Government have accepted the arguments for the changing the balance of debate. Given his views, however, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, like me, want to vote against the motion in its entirety, if the Opposition amendment is not carried.

Philip Davies: My right hon. Friend is making a typically powerful case. He mentioned the amount of time for debates on the Maastricht treaty; it is a matter of personal regret that I was not in the House at that time. We are debating not only the number of days, but the amount of time in Committee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there are a couple of votes in each Committee stage, that will further reduce the amount of time for debate? Once the Front Benchers have had their say, there will be little time for any Back Bencher to make a meaningful contribution to the Committee stage of the Bill.

William Hague: Exactly; my hon. Friend has made a telling point. In those situations, those of us on the Front Benches will have to exercise a good deal of restraint—but we will have to do so within one and a half hours. There are, for instance, 27 amendments on the Order Paper relating to tomorrow's one and a half hours on Home Office matters. That underlines my hon. Friend's point. There will be a shortage of time to discuss any of those amendments at all, let alone all of them.
	One of the reasons why we need more time than the Government have allowed is that they are in the habit of not being frank and open in their dealings with Parliament, let alone the country, on this subject. For the first six months of last year, Ministers made the ludicrous assertion that no negotiations were taking place in the European Union—even though, as we now know, sherpas were regularly meeting around European capitals.
	In answers to my written questions, the Foreign Secretary has refused to publish assessments and details of the treaty when to do so would conflict with his specious arguments on the matter. Last week, he intrigued the House by saying that it was necessary to vote for the treaty because the commission of bishops was in favour of it—implying that, for the first time since the days of Cardinal Wolsey, the House of Commons should decide whether to ratify an international treaty on the basis of ecclesiastical guidance.
	Hon. Members not familiar with the commission can be excused their ignorance. It turns out not to be a British commission of bishops, nor even one that includes the majority of our Churches or even the established Church of this country, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), will no doubt know. It is a commission of EU bishops that meets in Brussels and has received funding from the European Union. The fact that it is in favour of the treaty is no great surprise and the fact that the Foreign Secretary felt bound to bring it up as one of his principal arguments to the House of Commons shows that we need a great deal of time to subject to scrutiny the assertions made from the Government Dispatch Box.

Ian Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the commission is composed of EU bishops. Surely the EU is not yet appointing its own bishops?

William Hague: Perhaps the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will soon be applying for one of those positions—I am not sure.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, given how they are going about things, the Government are implementing a kind of divine right of kings, which was at the heart of what the Stuarts were about and why they were brought down?

William Hague: The Stuarts certainly learned to their cost that it is better to listen to Parliament and the country. I suspect that the Government will learn the same thing, also to their cost. The amendment that I have moved provides not for all the debate that might be desirable and necessary, but at least for an amount of debate consistent with what the country had been led to expect and for fuller consideration of subjects that the Government seem to want to pass over in the greatest hurry.
	The Government have already approached these matters in a highly partisan way. Ten days ago, they circulated to Labour Members the days and subjects of the proposed debates on the treaty through to the end of February—all, so far, borne out by what has been given to the House—but gave no such notice to the House in general until last Wednesday. Perhaps the interval until the publication of their proposals was caused by chronic indecision in Downing street, the root of most mishaps for Ministers at the moment. However, it is more likely to have been the result of wanting to give other hon. Members the minimum time to prepare amendments for debates on vital issues—particularly those on criminal justice, policing and human trafficking, all of which are to be discussed tomorrow in a debate announced only last Wednesday.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Under the Government's proposals, a full day has been allocated for climate change and international development, even though the treaty makes very small new provisions on such issues. EU policy development on those two issues is proceeding perfectly adequately under existing treaty powers. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister, who has promised flexibility, to devote that time to the issues that involve enormous transfers of power and authority from the House to the EU and to do something to correct the severe imbalance in the debates?

William Hague: Given the flexibility that he has said he will apply, it would be open to the Minister to rearrange the time as my right hon. Friend has suggested. However, I would prefer the Minister to do what is set out in our amendment. He should give many days of additional debate; of course debates can take place on energy and international development, but further days would mean that other vital subjects could be properly addressed in a bit of the detail that they merit. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
	The paucity of time, in the Government motion, for discussing amendments is another reason why we have framed our alternative schedule as we have. The Government's proposal for four and a half hours of Second Reading-style debate each day on the principles of the treaty's provisions in selected areas—but, notably, not in other areas—leaves only one and a half hours each day for the consideration of amendments in a Committee of the whole House.
	Whatever one's views of the treaty or that procedure, the distribution of time—three quarters of it for general debate and only one quarter for detailed amendments, within the confines of an overall schedule much shorter than anything that the House had every right to expect and of topics chosen to minimise debate on aspects of the treaty most uncomfortable for the Government—has the overall effect of making inadequate the time available for consideration of amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House.

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend is making a typically powerful and persuasive speech. If the Government persist with this niggardly allocation of time, is not the case overwhelming that the Opposition ought to consider withdrawing entirely from the proceedings and showing the public what a farce they are?

William Hague: I certainly think that if our amendment is defeated, the official Opposition and other hon. Members who wish matters to be properly debated should vote against the Government's entire procedural motion. The Government should have to come back again with a motion that satisfies the needs of Members with many different points of view—Labour Members who want to debate the charter of fundamental rights, Liberal Democrats who take a different view from ours on the merits of the treaty, but want adequate parliamentary debate and Members of my own party who, like me, are opposed to the treaty altogether.
	The Government should take all that into account and come back with a different motion. They should be defeated on their motion tonight, but I do not go along with my hon. Friend in advocating withdrawal from the proceedings because I believe that we were elected to the House to carry out our duty to scrutinise legislation as best we can.

Richard Shepherd: Why do we need a motion? Why are things not committed to a Committee of the House in the traditional manner? All the points would then be met.

William Hague: My hon. Friend raises another attractive alternative, which the Government should certainly consider. There is deep dissatisfaction in the House with what they have proposed. To illustrate the wider concerns about the debates, let me say a word about the six days of additional debate that we have proposed, to align the debates more closely with the importance of the treaty's provisions and with the original Government commitment to have 20 days of debate.

Ian Davidson: rose—

William Hague: Before doing that, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Ian Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember "Spitting Image" and the figure of David Steel in the top pocket of David Owen? Is not that the position of the small boy from Westminster school who is in the top pocket of the Prime Minister? Given that the Liberals are now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Government in this matter, why should the Government bother listening to Parliament?

William Hague: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful analogy. As I have explained, on this particular occasion it is not my policy to join him in persecuting the Liberal Democrats, but I am sure that if this is the only day on which they are turning their vote around, I will soon be joining him in our established alliance on this subject.

Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

William Hague: I feel that I ought to make progress, but yes.

Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend respond more fully to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who recommended that this matter be dealt with in the long-established conventional way of a Committee of the whole House? If the Government are not prepared to accept that proposal, why should not the Opposition make it more difficult for them by withdrawing co-operation? Perhaps that would bring the Government to their senses.

William Hague: That illustrates how strongly Members in all parts of the House feel about this. I will not come to any immediate judgment about my hon. Friend's proposal, certainly not without consulting my Front-Bench colleagues, but I think that if the Government were defeated on their motion they would have to consider all the options, including the House sitting as a Committee of the whole House in the normal way, and including the Opposition's proposals. They would do well to do so, because many of their own Members are deeply concerned about what they have proposed.
	Let me illustrate the importance of additional time in just one or two of the areas where our amendment proposes it. First, we propose two days of debate on justice and home affairs. The Government have allocated one day in their procedure motion, but we believe that two days is the bare minimum for such an important subject. The treaty would introduce wide and profound changes to the EU's powers in terms of justice and home affairs. The measures on justice and home affairs are these: a common EU policy on asylum, immigration and external border control
	"based on solidarity between member states"
	in article 61 of the new treaty on the functioning of the EU; in article 61g, measures by qualified majority voting to ensure administrative co-operation between national police and criminal justice authorities and the Commission; and in article 61h, a move to full co-decision on investigating financial links to terrorism—co-decision, I need hardly remind the House, would mean the Commission having the sole right of initiative over legislation and the European Parliament amending or blocking legislation. In article 62, there is a common policy on visas.
	Article 63 sets out the common asylum policy in more detail. It includes for the first time the basis for "uniform standards" rather than minimum standards for asylum—a change that was unsuccessfully opposed by the British Government while the constitution was being negotiated. In article 63a, the new common immigration policy is similarly set out, with new powers for the EU on legislation concerning third country nationals and the abolition of national vetoes—again, unsuccessfully opposed by the Government while the negotiations were going on. Article 63b contains the principle of fair sharing of responsibility over asylum, including its financial implications for member states, with potentially far-reaching consequences. These are all meant to be debated in one day—tomorrow.
	Articles 65 and 68 deal with civil justice, giving the EU new powers to pass laws on "effective access to justice",
	"development of alternative methods of dispute settlement"
	and
	"support for the training of the judiciary and judicial staff"—
	powers that the Government, during the drafting process, were concerned would compromise judicial independence but have now agreed to.
	All that alone would merit at least a day's debate—one might think much more than that—but it does not stop there. Articles 69a to 69g revolutionise the EU's role in criminal justice and policing. They give the European Court of Justice full jurisdiction over that area and extend the European Commission's right to initiate legislation at member states' expense, as well as widening the EU's remit in this area to include mutual admissibility of evidence, rights of individuals in criminal procedure, and rights of victims of crime—and, of course, national vetoes are abolished. The EU would be able to pass laws establishing minimum definitions of criminal offences and sanctions in eight areas. Needless to say, the Government had objections that were overridden while that was being negotiated.

Several hon. Members: rose —

William Hague: Let me just finish the description of what is covered in this one day of debate, as the Government propose it.
	Article 69d includes one of the profoundest changes of all—the right of Eurojust to initiate investigations, as well as the legislative basis to expand its role and new powers on cross-border investigations. Article 69e provides for the establishment of a European public prosecutor, despite the Government's once adamant opposition to any mention of such a post in the treaties. Article 69f expands the powers of Europol.
	"As currently drafted...the revised article would provide wide-ranging competence to approximate criminal procedural law on investigative measures. Any such provision would be completely unacceptable"—
	not my words but the text of the Government's failed amendments to the constitution text, on which they were defeated and gave in.
	Those are just the criminal justice and home affairs issues in the main body of the treaty, notwithstanding the highly questionable protocols that the Government have agreed to. The Minister says that there will be line-by-line scrutiny—he said it again on television only this lunchtime. I looked at the treaty earlier. On my reckoning, there are 13 pages covering the areas that I have described—with 40 lines a page, that is approximately 520 lines. The Government propose 360 minutes for the examination of those lines tomorrow—less than 45 seconds per line. That is the line-by-line scrutiny that the Government propose.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is giving a most excellent description of what is going on. Does he agree that many of those provisions, if not all, would require an Act of Parliament that had to go through all the procedures in this House and in the other House?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If any British Government proposed to change legislation in almost any of the areas that I have described, that would require a full Act of Parliament going through all the necessary and normal procedures in both Houses of Parliament.

Edward Davey: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point about time, which he is making very well, is it not the case that on all the issues that he described Britain has an opt-in and is not forced to agree with the other 26 EU member states? Does he think that the opt-in does not work, or does he support it?

William Hague: This is exactly why we need to debate these things at considerable length. The hon. Gentleman's point of view may be that we have an opt-in and that that is satisfactory. On the other hand, other hon. Members will wish to point out that the protocol on these matters sets out a transitional period after which the arrangements are changed and after which this country may be faced with financial penalties if it does not decide to opt into many of those arrangements. We may have different views about that, but the point of our discussions today—the hon. Gentleman and I may be united at least in this respect—is that we need plenty of time to discuss such far-reaching measures before they slide through this House.

James Clappison: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely convincing point. Do we not need a very great deal of time to discuss the extent to which the protocol purportedly protects us from the extended jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—a profound change that extends the jurisdiction of the ECJ to the judicial home affairs arena? Have we not seen, through the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, that the protocol that is supposed to protect us is full of holes?

William Hague: Yes, we have seen that.  [ Interruption. ] I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) wished to intervene on me, but he no longer does.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

William Hague: I should not have said that. Yes, of course I give way.

Bernard Jenkin: Even from behind, my right hon. Friend looked disappointed not to be getting an intervention from a Labour Member.
	We need time to discuss these matters because the opt-in arrangements to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred amount in every case to a super-Henry VIII clause whereby secondary legislation is to be used to amend primary legislation as the Government choose, if they opt into these arrangements. We are therefore handing huge powers to the Executive just by agreeing to the Bill.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The European Scrutiny Committee has referred to those points. Its report of 27 November states that the measures "considerably increase" the powers of the EU Commission and Court of Justice. It said that
	"a stronger position could have been achieved"
	for Britain by the Government, but was not; that the deal on the protocol to which my hon. Friends have referred
	"may lead to serious consequences for the UK";
	and that
	"some new and possibly unquantifiable risk may have been introduced".
	Its report of October stated that the opt-in safeguard was weak because Britain could not then opt out and that the "emergency brake" was not as effective as a veto. I hope that the Minister is taking note of the interventions. They illustrate that if time for debate on all those matters is limited to six hours, and if debate is confined on so many extensive new powers for the EU in respect of matters that could not more intimately affect our national sovereignty with a direct effect on our citizens' rights, it is risible to claim that that six hours constitutes a "very detailed discussion" of the provisions.

John Redwood: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the danger of the opt-in system is that if the Government opt in, we cannot debate the matters in question in a future general election, offer to change a particular view or get powers back because it is a one-way ratchet? That is why we need hours of time to consider this grave step that takes away the people's right to change their minds and have a better Government.

William Hague: Once again, I agree with my right hon. Friend.
	I was going to give several more examples, but in the interests of time I shall pass over some of them. I think that the House is getting the point that when one looks at the scale and detail of what is being put forward in the treaty, six hours of debate—four and a half hours of it a generic Second Reading-style debate—is not adequate to discuss many of the subjects.

Rob Marris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: Well, go on, and then I can get on and conclude my speech.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity. In contradistinction to the flavour he is getting from some of the interventions, I am getting the impression that many hon. Members have not looked at the source materials and are basing what they say on rumours and misinformation that is being peddled. For example, the right hon. Gentleman just agreed with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the ratchet mechanism, whereas the treaty enables competences to be transferred back to member states.

William Hague: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the current Government are on the brink of even asking for large numbers of competences to be returned to nation states, he will be waiting for a very long time.
	Let me give another example of what is in this treaty. All the things that I just read out about justice and home affairs are items that are in the actual treaty. Let us look at the provision in the Government's procedural motion to have one day's debate on all aspects of foreign policy and defence. In our amendment, we have set out that those should be separated—there should be a day on foreign policy and a day on defence. The treaty establishes a common defence policy; has weighty provisions on arms procurement; allows for structured co-operation that could have the profoundest implications for the future of European defence; and creates a mutual defence guarantee for all member states. Those are changes to which the Government had numerous objections during the negotiations, but objections on which they gave way. To all appearances, we are entering into a new military alliance, and yet that will not even be granted a full day's debate, or even six hours' debate, on the Floor of the House.
	Structurally, the treaty radically changes the structure and legal status of the EU. The intergovernmental third pillar is abolished; the European Community loses its separate identity; the EU gains its own legal personality—a move the last Prime Minister described as "potentially damaging"; and we see the establishment of a single President of Europe, about whom we spoke last week, whose appointment is already causing tremors in Downing Street. I notice that in the meantime it was reported in today's newspapers that one friend of the Prime Minister said:
	"Tony is a big candidate for any big job, but we think he has important work to do in the Middle East."
	The tremors are travelling further through Downing street as we speak.
	All those provisions are in the treaty. It sets out for the first time all of the EU's competences vis-à-vis the member states and does so in a way that changes the balance between them, with subtle but important implications. It is our firm view that the balance of powers between member states and the EU merits at least a day's debate, as proposed in our amendment. On national Parliaments, a point raised earlier, this treaty for the first time may impose an obligation on this House in relation to an external institution—a profound constitutional innovation and one about which the European Scrutiny Committee has raised serious concerns. The Committee has said that it remains
	"concerned that the provisions on the role of national parliaments are still cast in terms in which a legal obligation can be inferred, despite the undertakings given by Ministers; and...that, given its constitutional significance, this is not an issue where any ambiguity is acceptable".
	Clearly, that issue needs to be debated and, given that the Government think that such ambiguity on the matter is acceptable, the least they can do is explain why during several hours of debate on such a constitutional innovation.
	It is also extraordinary that the Government do not wish to discuss the new protocol on national Parliaments and subsidiarity, a point to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) just referred. Many of us believe that it is probably unworkable, but I am surprised that Ministers do not want to take the opportunity to extol its potential benefits to the House.
	I am skipping over some of the things that my amendment provides for because I think that the House is getting the flavour of what I am trying to do, but it makes clear that the charter of fundamental rights should be debated—an omission from the Government's programme that could not be a clearer admission that there are many things in this treaty that Ministers would rather pass over in silence.

Bob Spink: Just so this House does not pass over the matter, is my right hon. Friend aware and concerned that article 3 transfers exclusive competence on the common fisheries policy to the European Union? Is he concerned about that and about the fact that nowhere in the Government programme motion is there an opportunity for that important matter to be debated?

William Hague: I have always been concerned about the common fisheries policy, which has been a disaster for this country in every environmental and economic sense. There certainly ought be opportunities for us to debate that, along with the other matters that I have mentioned, and if the Government were to withdraw the motion and respond to the views of the House, I am sure that that would allow us to do so.
	We are, of course, in favour of debating such topics as energy and international development, but it has to be said, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, that the relevant treaty provisions are thin. Let us debate them, but the Government should not pretend that the provisions relating to them require more parliamentary scrutiny than the highly controversial implications of the charter of fundamental rights, the future role of national Parliaments or the distribution of competences between nation states and the European Union.
	So why are the Government proposing to give less time to those matters either than was previously advertised or than is genuinely required? Is it because they have a vital, heavy and ambitious legislative programme that will be disrupted by an extra six days of debate on this treaty? Of course not. Is it because they are worried that any more sitting days will increase the workload of Parliament to an intolerable extent? No. Is it because they do not want certain parts of the treaty to have an entire day of debate in their own right because people inside and outside Parliament might notice what is being done in their name? That is nearer the mark.
	The more detailed consideration there is, the more clearly the treaty will be exposed as the almost identical copy of the constitution on which the people of Britain were promised a referendum. Every detailed examination of what is in the treaty has failed to support the Government's arguments that it is fundamentally different, as the reports from the European Scrutiny Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee have shown. Further proof of another reason has emerged over the weekend. As we have repeatedly said from this Dispatch Box, this treaty's importance relies not just in the clear-cut extension of the EU's powers or abolition of national vetoes but in the processes it sets in train. The document leaked at the weekend shows that EU leaders plan to make a series of important decisions—on subjects such as the role of the EU President; the structure, operation and field of action of Europol; the new powers of Eurojust; the rules governing the European public prosecutor; the powers of the new operational committee on internal security; the nature of structured co-operation in defence; the role and power of the EU Foreign Minister; the organisation and functioning of the EU diplomatic service; and other subjects, too—only after the ratification of the treaty in those countries that are called difficult countries, such as the United Kingdom.
	Ministers, it seems, are engaged in trying to hide from Parliament not only the extent of the measures to which they have agreed, but the extent of the measures to which they have not agreed and to which they intend to sign up once these debates are out of the way. There could not be a more cynical approach to the conduct of Government policy, deeply lacking in openness, transparency or honesty. The Government's concern throughout has not been to listen to the public or Parliament but to do their best to exclude both from any decision making about the European Union.
	The motion is of a piece with that attitude. That is why it is unacceptable to those of us who are opposed to the EU treaty and why it should be unacceptable to those who are in favour of or indifferent to the treaty but want to see the functioning of Parliament and the scrutiny of an important treaty carried out in a way that lives up to the traditions of Parliament and the history of democratic debate. No parliamentary consideration of the treaty can be adequate without the referendum to which 40 million voters are entitled.
	A longer time for consideration that allowed more thorough discussion of amendments, was focused on the most far-reaching provisions of the treaty and allowed greater time for the Government to explain those many aspects of the treaty that they have not yet explained would be a great improvement on what they have proposed. That is why, if the Government will not take their motion away, I ask the House to support the Opposition amendment when we come to vote on it.

Jon Trickett: The House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to speak for the same length of time as the previous two speakers. However, I want to make some important points.
	First, as a proud Labour MP, it has never been my wish to interfere with the Government's intention to legislate on particular matters, although we have disagreed from time to time. I have been driven into some unusual situations by that. I have had doubts about such a motion on only one previous occasion, but I am afraid the Minister has not convinced me that this motion makes adequate provision for debates such as those that I and many other Labour colleagues want.
	I have already intervened several times, so the House may have gathered what my objections are, but I shall quickly run through them now. The motion provides for eight days during which we will discuss clause 2. In effect, the Bill is a single-clause Bill. The treaty's effects on UK legislation are included in that clause. Most of the amendments will be tabled during those eight days, but the days have been divided in an unusual way. The House will not go into Committee for the first four and a half hours of each day while it is scrutinising the Bill. That is a constitutional novelty. On Friday, I will have been in the House for 12 years and so I suppose that I am a relatively junior Member, but in those 12 years I have never seen the scrutiny of a Bill involving a generic debate, determined by the Executive, for the first three quarters of the day, with the House going into Committee only for the last 25 per cent. of the day—the last hour and a half, in this case.
	The first problem with the form that has been adopted is that not only is it a constitutional novelty but it allows the manipulation of the debates by the Executive to their advantage. The themes that have been determined by the Executive are clearly intended to exemplify what they see as the beneficial aspects of the treaty. However, many other aspects of the treaty will not have the same beneficial effects on the UK. The Government have deliberately set about creating a set of debates on themes that are intended to exemplify the beneficial effects of the legislation and the treaty, but that is not how legislation ought to be scrutinised in this place.
	The second and equally important problem with this way of proceeding is that we know that generic debates—Adjournment debates and other debates on Government motions—are largely dominated by the speakers from the two Front Benches. We have just seen an example of that. The debate started three and a half hours ago, and I am the first Back-Bencher to speak. The four and a half hour generic debates will be dominated by those on the two Front Benches and it is clear that the voices of Back Benchers will not be heard in the way they would if the House were in Committee, where they could seek to amend the legislation and thereby affect the treaty. It is clear that the miserable one and a half hours each day might be dominated by a series of Divisions, while the four and a half hours will be dominated by the Front-Bench spokespeople and, in particular, by the Executive. That is not the way in which the House should proceed.
	It seems that such a process will also distort the character of the debate. It is clear that the division between those who sit on the Front Benches is about the role of the nation state and national Parliaments vis-à-vis a superstate or federal states. That is clearly an important debate for the House, but other voices, on our side at least—and I am one of them—want to raise another critique of the EU.
	Let me briefly exemplify the kind of debates that we should have, but which are excluded by the motion. Many of us have accepted that the economic powers that in the past were coterminous with the nation state are now supranational and even global. It is therefore inevitable that if we want to attempt to control the effects of those economic powers, we must have some supranational co-operation. The argument in favour of a Europe of the peoples that attempts in some way to control the power of those global corporations has been won.
	We want not a liberal, market-driven Europe but a social Europe. However, the terms of the motion exclude the possibility of our having that debate. The debate will largely be between those who speak from the two Front Benches and it will be about the nation state as opposed to the superstate, whereas we want a debate about a liberal Europe as opposed to a social Europe.
	That brings me to the subject of what the Minister has denied is an opt-out. I want to speak about the charter of fundamental rights. When the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, went to negotiate the treaty, we were told that the red line would not be crossed—the charter would not be allowed to create judiciable rights in the United Kingdom. When he had finished the negotiations and had been on the phone to the then occupant of No. 11, he came out and said, "We've secured an opt-out from the charter." Those were the words he used, both on the record and in briefings to the press. Now the Minister denies that an opt-out has been secured. That needs to be debated because the charter of fundamental rights is central to the sort of Europe that is being constructed. Will it be a liberal, market-driven Europe, where inequality is intensified and companies are allowed to move across the globe with no accountability to the work force or the nation states? Will it be a Europe where the interests of ordinary people are secured by the charter of fundamental rights? In our debates, there is no opportunity to test whether the Minister was right to deny the opt-out or whether Tony Blair was right to say that there was an opt-out.

Jon Cruddas: Has my hon. Friend seen the rulings of the European Court of Justice on the Laval and Viking cases, the implications of which split labour lawyers throughout Europe? We need to discuss that thoroughly, especially in the context of title IV and our opt-out of the charter of fundamental rights. The consequences could drive a coach and horses through workers' protections throughout Europe, especially in this country.

Jon Trickett: The Viking and Laval cases, which were determined in the European Court of Justice recently, clearly signal that we should hold a debate on a neo-liberal Europe, where corporations can move across the continent uncontested by trade unionists.
	Let us consider title IV of the charter of fundamental rights, from which the Minister claims that there is no opt-out whereas Tony Blair said that there was. That needs to be debated. Page 173 of the treaty refers to the United Kingdom, ostensibly led by a social democratic Government, and Poland, which is hardly a social democratic country. Articles 1 and 2 clearly contain an intention to ensure that the UK and Poland are exempt from most of the justiciable rights in title IV, which is entitled "Solidarity". Paragraph 2 of article 1 states:
	"In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom".
	What is this amazing title IV, which the programme motion excludes from debate? I shall not go through it in detail because you would rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is important to explain why I do not find the motion in its current form acceptable and why I am frankly tempted by the Opposition amendment. Many colleagues are also tempted as they consider how to vote. Title IV gives workers throughout Europe the right to information and consultation within an undertaking. It gives trade unions the right of collective action and bargaining. It grants a right of access to placement services, a protection in the event of unjustified dismissal and a right to fair and just working conditions. How can the Government have said that the treaty's solidarity clauses cannot be incorporated into UK law?

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech from his own point of view. As with Michael Foot and Enoch Powell in their day, combination in opposition on a matter of principle can be achieved. Does the hon. Gentleman hope that the broadcasting authorities, for example, will pay attention to the views that are being expressed? So far, there has been almost no serious commentary or analysis of important questions, which have to be resolved.

Jon Trickett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point because the views that I am expressing rarely appear in the media. However, millions of people hold those views.
	Let me draw the Minister's attention to the fact that every trade union supported the amendment that I tabled, which Mr. Speaker, perhaps rightly, failed to select. The trade unions are concerned by the UK Government's apparent decision to exempt the UK from title IV of the charter. If the media are not adequately reflecting our views, it is essential that the House at least structures its debates to allow Back Benchers such as me and others to express their desire for a more social and less neo-liberal Europe than the Government currently envisage.

Colin Burgon: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case against a neo-liberal Europe. He will have heard the Minister deny that we have opted out from title IV solidarity. Is not the confusion that has ensued as the day has progressed an argument for a full day's debate on the charter of fundamental rights as it affects working people?

Jon Trickett: My amendment might have achieved precisely that, had it been selected. I want a full, six-hour debate, not dominated by Labour and Conservative Front Benchers, to ensure that the voices of people such as me are properly heard.

Graham Stringer: I listened carefully when my hon. Friend said that he was considering voting for the Conservative amendment. However, although it is better than the substantive motion, might it not be best to go back to square one? All the flaws that he mentions in the context of the charter also apply to other subjects that are being missed out of the debate. Would it not be a cleaner decision to vote against the substantive motion?

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend tempts me to another course of action, which I shall consider during the evening. However, I want to stress to my hon. Friend the Minister and anyone else on the Treasury Bench who is listening, that some of us accept the argument for some sort of supranational co-operation on a social democratic basis to try to control the powers that the globalisation of capitalism has unleashed. I am more than half convinced that a European entity of some kind is necessary, but I am equally adamant that what the Government have negotiated unleashes the power of big business, while the opt-out that we appear to have secured diminishes the power of organised labour to resist the actions of specific corporations.
	I want to consider the Viking and Laval cases briefly.

Colin Burgon: Is the concept that the bureaucrats and Peter Mandelsons of this world—[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] I am sorry to say his name, but there is a perception that such people exist in a sort of nether world. However, have not this week's events shown—Peter Mandelson, who is keen to push through the various trade agreements, said today, "This must happen before Bush loses power"—that there is close working between the bureaucracy and the neo-liberal forces?

Jon Trickett: It was interesting to read Commissioner Mandelson's comments that it was essential to get the trade agreement in place before the demise of President Bush. However, Madam Deputy Speaker may think that I am straying from the point—

Colin Burgon: She is not listening.

Jon Trickett: That's okay then.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now confine his remarks to the motion.

Jon Trickett: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The point that I am trying to make—perhaps inadequately—is that the terms of the motion seem to have been deliberately constructed to engineer a debate on the Government's view and the Opposition's view and the nation  v. the supranational entity. I should like amendments to be debated to allow us to hold a proper debate on the opt-out, to which the Minister often referred.
	I want briefly to consider the Viking and Laval cases before handing over to somebody else. Those cases clearly determined a hierarchy of rights in the EU, in which the rights of property, free competition and an open market are of a higher order than those of ordinary working people to organise collectively to defend what they perceive as their interests. If the opt-out, as I insist on calling it, continues, that gives a clear signal to the ECJ that the Government entirely accept the argument that there is such a hierarchy and that the rights of trade unionists and others hold a lesser place than the rights of capital to move freely across the European Union.
	Therefore, I will be an invidious position when it comes to tonight's vote at 10 o'clock. I want my Government to get their legislation—they have many excellent pieces of legislation about to go through the House—but I am not convinced by the Minister's claim that there will be the flexibility to enable us to secure the kind of debate about a social Europe versus a liberal Europe that I would like. Therefore, I am looking to him or his colleagues to indicate in the next hour or two that there will be a clear opportunity to debate and to vote on the charter, and on title IV in particular. Otherwise, I might well be tempted into the Opposition Lobby tonight.

Simon Hughes: I am not surprised that the two Members who signed the motion in the name of the Government are not here. The Leader of the House, who is often here working diligently, is noticeably absent and the Foreign Secretary is yet to show his face. They have left the estimable Minister for Europe to deal with how the Government hope to get their proposal—we debated it a week ago today and they got general support for it, including from our Benches—from an agreement in principle to the other end of its progress. However, now that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and the first Labour Back Bencher to speak, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), have both made it clear that the proposed route is not acceptable—I will say similar things to them—it will be clear to the Government that they have got themselves into a muddle and that they cannot hope to go down that road.
	The Government came up with the idea that it would be good to discuss an important treaty—it is the reason for the European Union (Amendment) Bill, but it is not the Bill itself—by grouping subject areas of the treaty into discussion of different provisions in the Bill. However, anybody who looks at the Bill will see that it is only marginally detailed. It goes to the specific mechanics for implementing the treaty—for example, clause 2 is the important one that says that if we join the treaty to a list of treaties for which we already have legislative power, it has direct effect in the United Kingdom. However, the Bill does not set out the different subject areas. The Government therefore sought to manage the debate.
	What has happened shows how completely flawed our systems for dealing with treaties are in this place. I have argued that ever since I arrived here, and my colleagues have sought to persuade Governments of it in the past. We cannot expect colleagues and Governments satisfactorily to shoehorn a debate on a treaty into a debate on a Bill.
	The hon. Member for Hemsworth said that he would hand the baton on to somebody else when he finished. I was a bit worried that he was hoping that I would pick it up for the neo-liberal view of the world that he described. I am happy to be a Liberal, but that was not quite my understanding of my position—I am a much more traditional Liberal than that, for which I am sure he will be thankful.
	The hon. Gentleman argued that there should be both a debate about the general implication of the treaty and whether it would effectively give institutional power to deal with the private sector—a perfectly proper debate about one of the reasons colleagues such as me have supported the development of the European Union—and a debate about specific proposals, such as the implications for workers' rights and the rest, related either to the parts on which we currently have no obligation, but to which we could opt in, or to the charter of fundamental rights, which is attached to the treaty but not a part of it as far as the UK is concerned. That would be perfectly proper, but we will not get a chance to debate those matters at all. Under the proposal, we are being presented with an attempt to shoehorn debates about some things into limited time, which will be inadequate, as is abundantly clear.
	Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made clear our position on the central issue. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that the treaty is a good thing, that it will be good for Britain, that we were right to ratify it and that we should agree to it. That is our position and we do not resile from it. We also had an exchange, which is now familiar, about whether we should have a referendum on the treaty or on the wider issue. The House knows the positions: the Government said that there should be no referendum, the Conservative party wants one just on the treaty and we want one, once the treaty is agreed, on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union. We would campaign in support of our remaining in the EU.
	However, those are not the matters for today. Before I even saw the Conservatives' amendment, I was clear that the Government proposal would not work and that we should vote against it—defective though the Conservatives' amendment is, it is a better attempt than what the Government have proposed. At 10 o'clock tonight, my colleagues and I will therefore vote against the proposal in motion No. 2. We are absolutely clear that it is defective. We shall support amendment (f), standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, because it is the best alternative in town, although it, too, is substantially defective.
	Hoping that we will defeat the Government tonight and that those such as the hon. Member for Hemsworth will have the courage of their convictions and vote out this procedural proposal, I now make the offer, which I am sure would be accepted by those on the Conservative Front Bench, to the Minister for Europe and the Deputy Leader of the House that we sit down after tonight's proceedings and do what we should have done in the first place: negotiate not a perfect solution—we are in an imperfect context—but a much better solution. Such a solution would not only allow debate about the substance, but allow the legislature to decide the important issues and propose them to the Government.
	Of course we can do that thematically, by taking, for example, the charter of fundamental rights one week and justice and home affairs, which are currently on the agenda for tomorrow, another week. However, the decision should be led by the legislature, not the Government. We know what the Government's position is. The Committee stage of parliamentary proceedings is not the time when Governments should make their proposals; it is when parliamentarians from the Government Back Benches and all Opposition parties should test them by amendments and come to a conclusion.

William Cash: Leaving aside for the moment the question of a referendum—although we would be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman would say on that—would he also agree, speaking from his party's point of view, that it is important that such matters as new clauses, in particular those on saving the Bill of Rights and the supremacy of Parliament, for instance, should be properly debated as well?

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. I shall come back to that, although I do not want to make a long speech, which might disappoint colleagues—over the weekend, I contemplated using motion No. 1 or motion No. 2 as an opportunity to make a record-breaking speech, which would have been a very long speech indeed. I think that I am second in the parliamentary league table—[Hon. Members: "Only second?"] I was overtaken, sadly. My speech was from the days of trying to resist the abolition of the Greater London council, when I spoke from the then Labour Opposition's Front Bench, much to the chagrin of the Labour party, which had deserted its post. However, I decided not to do that today, because I thought that a collection of arguments from throughout the House making it clear that the proposed procedure was unacceptable would be better.

Richard Shepherd: Although the hon. Gentlemen's suggestion would mitigate the worst part of the Government's proposals, what was wrong with the traditional way of handling such a Bill, on the Floor of the House? Is that not the way forward?

Simon Hughes: That would certainly be a way forward. Unless there had been agreement that the new system was better than the old system, it would probably have been better to keep the tried-and-tested system. I do not belong to the dinosaur tendency, which says that we never change our procedures. Indeed, I welcomed the Minister's suggestion that we try to be thematic. That seemed a welcome initiative and I do not resist it just because it is a new idea—if we did that, we would never make any changes to the procedure in this place at all. However, it might be better to go back. Indeed, if we defeat the Government's motion tonight, that is certainly where we will be, with the normal procedures. That is a better starting place than the proposal that has turned out to be totally inadequate to the task ahead of us, even though it might have been attempted in good faith.
	I want to deal with some of the specific subjects that have already been identified as having been missed from the provisions on the allocation of time. We can have lots of inter-party knockabout on these matters, but, to be fair, all parties agree that there is a common interest in debating certain sections of the treaty for roughly the same length of time. However, the Opposition are making an extra bid for certain other sections to be included, and everyone has spotted the fact that the Government are trying to rush things through far more quickly than is justified. I shall come back to that issue, which I hope deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
	Certain matters are not provided for in the timetable, and are perhaps not commonly agreed to be valid subjects for debate. They are not the central issues, but they relate to the economy, social services and public services. Adoption rights and aspects of family law, for example, are not unimportant to people, and we ought to have an opportunity to debate them. There certainly ought to be an opportunity to discuss the role and legal status of EU institutions. The Conservatives get themselves wound up about that and misrepresent the case. It is not the great monster that they pretend it is, and I shall be happy to take them on in that regard. Many organisations have legal status. The Universal Postal Union, for example, has legal status. The treaty is bringing the situation up to date by proposing that certain new structures should have legal status. So this issue is not a monster, but we should still debate it properly.
	There is also a good debate to be had on the distribution of competencies between the EU, as it will be, and the national Parliaments. The treaty actually gives national Parliaments more say, not less, in that regard, although one would not think so if one listened to the Tory party. For the first time, the treaty explicitly provides a right to leave the European Union as opposed to staying in it. I would be happy to debate that, because it shows the merit of the treaty—

Nigel Evans: That is a red herring.

Simon Hughes: It is not a red herring. It is an absolutely central proposal in the treaty— [ Interruption. ] It is not even a matter of fishing policy.
	There is also a suggestion that we should have further debates on the role of national Parliaments. I should be happy to add all these topics to the agenda. There is also a strong case for devoting more time to debating the central issues, including foreign policy and defence. The treaty proposes changes in structure, which I welcome. For example, it is a good idea to have one person responsible for foreign policy, rather than a Commissioner and another senior official.
	There are many good things in the treaty, and they are big enough issues to warrant debate, as are the issues that are on the agenda for tomorrow, for which the time allowed is inadequate. There should be an opt-out in relation to justice and home affairs, and the Government have negotiated just such an opt-out. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), now our party leader, argued strongly for that, as did our previous party leader and our new spokesman on home affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who will speak tomorrow. He will also make that argument, which is one that I have advanced all the time. Those matters are rightly not part of our commitment at the moment. There is a proper debate to be had on what could happen to make them part of our commitment, however. Would there need to be proper protection for Parliament, to protect us from the position changing from an opt-in to being part of the obligation?
	Asylum, migration, border crime, justice policy, policing and human trafficking all deserve more than a day's debate, whether the days are split into two periods of three hours or in any other way.

Ian Davidson: Is it not the case that the Liberal Democrats have already committed themselves to voting for absolutely and utterly everything in the treaty anyway, and that they cannot therefore be seriously interested in scrutinising it with a view to seeking changes? Are they not simply engaging in a game? The reality is that if people vote Liberal Democrat, they will get Brussels.

Simon Hughes: I know the hon. Gentleman's position, and he knows ours. That is not new in this place. We think that the treaty will bring benefits to Britain. We believe that a European Union of 27 members needs different structures from the European Union of six, nine, 15 or 25 members. We need to avoid the nonsense of changing the presidency every six months. We support all those things, but that does not mean that we are against scrutiny. We have argued over and again that we do not give adequate scrutiny—

Ian Davidson: Do you want to change it?

Simon Hughes: Of course there might be things that we think could be improved. Parliamentary scrutiny allows—

Ian Davidson: Are you going to vote for changes?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we conduct the debate in the usual manner, please?

Simon Hughes: I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's usual manner, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We are very happy that the treaty should be scrutinised. I have made the point that the scrutiny should have come first, before we dealt with the Bill. However, we support the Bill because it will allow the United Kingdom to make the treaty part of UK domestic law. Without proper scrutiny, however, some of the proper questions that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) and other colleagues want to ask cannot be asked. Such questions could well throw up issues that, by definition, scrutiny is designed to reveal. We have never given anyone a blank cheque but, at the end of the day, the Government of any country have the executive responsibility to seek to negotiate treaties with other countries. If we had been the Government, the result would have been different. Unfortunately, we were not elected to form a Government last time, but I hope that, before the hon. Gentleman and I have finished our time here, the Liberal Democrats will have formed a Government. He will then be able to hold us to account.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We should scrutinise everything in the treaty in detail. He says that he supports it because, overall, he believes that it is good for Britain. Does he not agree, however, that the final judgment should rest with the people, and that there should be a referendum on the issue?

Simon Hughes: I believe that the final judgment about whether the United Kingdom should be part of the European Union should rest with the British people in a referendum. On the treaty, however, given the structure of the document now before us, I do not believe that there could be a valid debate or decision by the British people, as it would be limited to the matters in the amending treaty. Because most people in Britain did not take part in the last referendum in 1975, and because this is still a big issue, we would welcome and value an opportunity to have a referendum on the big question of whether the United Kingdom should stay in the European Union, and we hope that Parliament will agree to provide that opportunity once the treaty has been agreed. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and other colleagues will support that proposal. Out there, the British public are not concerned about the details of how many Commissioners there are. They are interested in the big question, and that is what we ought to be voting on.

Mark Harper: rose—

Ian Davidson: rose—

Simon Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), then I want to finish so that other hon. Members may speak.

Mark Harper: The point that the hon. Gentleman has just made may or may not be valid, but why, at the last election, did he and his hon. Friends stand in front of their electors and promise that they would give the people a say on a document that is incredibly similar to this one?

Simon Hughes: There is a very simple answer to that question. The hon. Gentleman is right. At the last election, all three major parties said that they would give the British people a vote. His party said that it would do so within six months; the other two did not specify a time. At that stage, it was understood that the proposal was that there would be a totally new, all-encompassing, once-and-for-all document—a new constitution for Europe. In all the time that I have been here, I have always said that big constitutional matters should be the subject of a referendum. Subsequently, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the proposal did not get through the referendums in France and the Netherlands. As a result, it went back to the drawing board. He can look at my copy of the treaty if he wants to—

Mark Harper: It is the same.

Simon Hughes: No, it is not—

Richard Bacon: Why does the European Scrutiny Committee say that it is?

Simon Hughes: It is not.

Richard Bacon: Why does the Foreign Affairs Committee say that it is?

Simon Hughes: It is not. This document—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now debating the motion on the timetable, rather than anything else.

Simon Hughes: I was being distracted, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall just finish my sentence, then I shall follow your stricture absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the treaty, he will see that it is not a new constitution for Europe. It consists of amendments to existing documents. That is the fundamental difference.
	I shall turn to the substantive reasons why the motion should be defeated. First, it does not allow enough time for debate. This is a 291-page document. There were 23 days—162 hours and 45 minutes—allowed for debate on the Maastricht treaty. In its breadth, this is more of that order than some of our previous, more minor debates.
	Secondly, if we pass this motion, there will be a clearly flawed provision that would allow Members to initiate emergency debates and decided by Mr. Speaker or by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, only at the end of the day's business. That is nonsense; by definition, these matters should be dealt with at the beginning of the day's business.
	Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is no longer in his place, and others made an important point earlier—that the Government's intention of giving clear notice, which is good, has resulted in our having to conduct a debate first and deal with amendments later. That is not the right way round because it means that the Executive go first, with Back Benchers and the Opposition parties having the chance to participate only later and with limited time. Logically, we should be able to see what the amendments are, have a general debate on the issues and vote at the end. There are better procedural ways of achieving the same objective.
	My fourth objection is the split between four and a half hours for general debate and one and a half hours for amendments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West is right to say that we are unlikely to table millions of amendments, but some hon. Members will table them and he might even table the odd one himself— [Interruption.] We may well need more than one and a half hours to deal with amendments, so the motion is unacceptable in providing only 30 hours in total for all amendments before we reach Report and Third Reading. The Opposition's proposals would allow 66 hours—clearly an improvement in doubling the time, which is why we said we will support it—but we must provide sufficient time to deal with all the amendments.

Ian Davidson: May I offer the hon. Gentleman an alliance? I will vote for his referendum if he will vote for mine.

Simon Hughes: That is very generous of the hon. Gentleman. However, we have not yet had an opportunity to get the amendment passed. When it is available and has been passed, we can have that discussion— [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton reminds me that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West has always held this position.
	The Minister, trying to rescue his friends from a difficult position, generously said that he was willing to be flexible. I think that he will certainly need to be so if he is to make progress after tonight. Whatever happens, we hold ourselves ready to have the necessary conversations among all the political parties about how we can be much more flexible than the current proposal allows.
	It is nonsense that in respect of days 10 and 11, on which we are likely to debate the referendum proposals and remaining business, the same extension of time is not available unless other arrangements are made. We know what is coming down the track; we know what are likely to prove the most controversial areas, so we should provide for them. It is nonsense, too, to assume that Report stage will not happen because there will have been no amendments. Only six hours are programmed for Report and Third Reading. As this Bill is so important, even if there were no amendments, there should be two days for Second Reading and two days for Third Reading, so the provisions in the motion are clearly inadequate.
	In conclusion, I have reached the view that the modernising tendencies of the Government, whereby they want to do something good with procedure, have been overridden by the old tendency, described so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) when he spoke of the Stalin in No. 10 and his authoritarian friends. That has been reflected in authoritarianism about the timetable for the Bill. We are witnessing ridiculously authoritarian control over this timetable. If this is the most important measure before us—I am not necessarily saying that it is—and if it must be debated on the Floor of the House because of its constitutional importance, it must have all the time it needs for full debate. We need to make that time; we do not sit in Parliament as long as we used to and Liberal Democrat Members are ready to make the time available. We may have different views about the merits of the Bill or the treaty, but the House will do itself a disservice if it does not provide enough time to debate the Bill properly.
	Those who want a referendum, whether they be Liberal Democrats or Conservatives in different ways, may believe that there will be an opportunity to have one later, depending on amendments and other things. However, it is very misguided indeed for the Government, who are unwilling to have any referendum, to seek to clamp down on debate of this Bill.

Rob Marris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for one Member to describe another Member as Stalin, who was a mass murderer?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member was quoting another hon. Member when he used that expression.

Patricia Hewitt: Having listened with great interest to the last three and half hours of debating over the business motion, I am delighted to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. I am well aware that the procedure proposed to handle the European Union (Amendment) Bill is novel and I am also well aware that some hon. Members view that novelty as enough in itself to damn it. That is not my view. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have always been strongly in favour of the work of the Modernisation Committee and I commend the Government on this occasion for having given considerable thought to what they view—a view that I share—as a better way of dealing with the double set of issues that Parliament needs to debate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I seem to have missed the great body of demands for changes of this kind. Why does she believe that this procedure has been introduced suddenly for this particular and rather important Bill?

Patricia Hewitt: I was just going to make a point that effectively responds to my hon. Friend's intervention. What Parliament needs to consider on this occasion is both the treaty itself and the Bill to give effect to it. It is the treaty that contains the real matters of substance that this House and certainly my constituents are most concerned about, whereas the Bill—an extremely short Bill, albeit one with some important procedural content—simply gives effect to it. It is therefore very wise and imaginative of the Government to come forward with a procedure that allows Parliament fully to debate the substance of the treaty itself—which is not of course amendable by this Parliament—by organising a series of themed debates, while also allowing time, as must properly be required, for debates on amendments to the Bill.

Rob Marris: May I suggest that evidence of demand for change, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked about, comes from the existence of our new Public Bill Committees? That may not provide sufficient evidence for my hon. Friend, but we have changed our procedures in order to have a more general start to them, including the taking of evidence, if necessary. Subsequently, those Committees move on to amendments—very similar to the procedure proposed to the House tonight.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who also made a very good point earlier. I have always supported that sort of special procedure for Bill Committees. Many, many years ago when I was general secretary of the organisation that is now called Liberty, I gave evidence to a Standing Committee which I believe I am right in saying was the first to make use of such procedure in dealing with Bills. I well know from my mail box and conversations with constituents that they are interested in many aspects of the substance of the Lisbon treaty. They want to speak to me about rising energy prices, to which, of course, the liberalisation that is so urgently needed in the European Union is one of the major responses. They want to talk about climate change, about human trafficking, and about the welcome cuts in mobile phone roaming charges and other benefits to consumers that have come, and will come in future, from the European single market. It is on all those and many other issues that the themed debates will allow us to reflect.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Lady has spoken of her constituents' great interest in this subject, and their wish to speak to her about it. At the last election, she stood before the voters and promised that she would allow them to make a decision. Why has she now decided that they are not to have a chance to do so?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we are debating not the pros and cons of a referendum but the motion before the House.

Patricia Hewitt: I shall certainly want to discuss that if I am called when we come to debate the amendments that will doubtless be tabled on the issue of the referendum. At this stage, I will simply make the point that the Lisbon treaty is different in nature and in substance from the constitutional treaty on which I, and other Members, promised a referendum.
	I must say that I do not find it in the least surprising that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and his party object not only to the treaty but to the programme motion. I believe it was at the 2006 Conservative party conference that the party's leader said it was high time his party stopped "banging on about Europe". Those were his exact words. He said that the Conservative party had been banging on about Europe and, not surprisingly, losing the attention of the public as a result. We have heard from so many Members this afternoon that same obsession with procedure, that same nit-picking, that same—in many cases—belief in conspiracies whenever Brussels is mentioned, which has characterised the British Conservative party's attitude to Europe for two decades or more, and which contributed so much to their expulsion from government.

Richard Shepherd: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will reflect, when she stands before the courts of this land charged with an offence against law, that she will be protected by procedure. It is in procedure, sometimes, that our liberty is preserved.

Patricia Hewitt: I have always had great respect for the hon. Gentleman's work on human rights and civil liberties, and of course his point is a fair one, but I do not think that he misunderstood in any way what I was saying. I am only sorry that he thought that so much of this afternoon's debate, particularly the multiple points of order, contributed anything either to the scrutiny that the House is here to give or to the debate among the public.
	Nor do I find it surprising that the Conservative party is so isolated within the European Union itself. It was, again, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), when he became leader of the party, who in an attempt to appease some of his Back Benchers pledged to leave the European People's party.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much regret having to do this, but surely the relationship between the Conservative party and the EPP has nothing to do with the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have been lenient with a number of contributions from Members in all parts of the House, but I remind Members again that we are discussing the programme motion.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the reasons why I support the programme motion so strongly is that I am certain that, in the days and weeks ahead, it will give us an opportunity to probe in much more detail the Conservative party's attitude to the European Union, to Britain's membership of the European Union, to the Lisbon treaty, and to their conservative and centre-right political colleagues in the rest of the European Union, from whom they now find themselves entirely isolated. I think I am right in saying that the only ally that the Conservative party has among its European Union counterparts is the Czech Civil Democratic party, the ODS, which is both in favour of the treaty and against a referendum.

Nigel Evans: Part of the argument this evening is that we are not being given sufficient time in which to scrutinise the treaty that is before us. If we were given more time, the right hon. Lady would have more time to do all the things that she would like to do, although tonight is clearly not the time at which to do them.

Patricia Hewitt: I think the hon. Gentleman overestimates the amount of time that is required in the House to expose the contradictions in his party's attitude to the European Union. The amendment that he supports seeks six more days for debate, and more time within each debate for amendments to the Bill. However, as has been made clear this afternoon, the amount of time that the House will have for substantive debate on both the treaty and the Bill will depend very largely on the number of points of order from Conservative Members. I hardly think that good use has been made of the generous amount of time that has been made available for debate on the programme motion.

Rob Marris: Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the Opposition amendment which has been selected seeks more time in which to discuss European Union issues—more time in which the deep divisions within the official Opposition over our membership of the European Union can be exposed? Their amendment suggests that, in a kamikaze way, they want more time in which to expose those divisions.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that appears to me to be the only reason why our Front-Bench colleagues might conceivably want to extend the debate on the Bill and the treaty.

Barry Sheerman: May I correct that? Surely there is not much division on the other side of the House. The fact is that since Lord Ashcroft came into being—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind Members that we are debating the timetabling of this particular piece of legislation. I ask Members to observe that. This is not a general debate.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend made his own point.
	As I said earlier, the obsessional nature of so much of Conservative Members' interest in the European Union has become increasingly plain, and it helped to propel them from office and keep them out of office for years on end, but the kind of debate of which we have heard so much from them this afternoon has an even worse effect. It compounds a problem about which Members in all parts of the House are increasingly concerned: public disengagement from Parliament itself. I am perfectly happy to see the Conservatives showing once again their true colours on Europe, and we will have many more opportunities to debate that following the programme motion. What worries me is that the kind of debate and the kind of points of order that we have heard this afternoon lead the public—my constituents and, I think, everyone else's—not just to switch off their television sets should they happen to stumble on the parliamentary channel, but to switch off completely from voting.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not correct that if points of order or comments in the Chamber had been out of order, you and your colleagues would have ruled to that effect? Is it not wrong for us to seek to criticise the Chair?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupants of the Chair regularly rule on points of order, and on most occasions—although not all—the points of order are not relevant. On this occasion, it is important that we debate the timetable motion that is before the House.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I hope I have been making clear, I strongly support the Government's proposed timetable.
	I deplore the nature of much of this debate, as it serves to compound the serious problem of public disengagement from our parliamentary processes. I look forward to there being a better debate—which will be facilitated by this timetable—on the substance of the Lisbon treaty, which I strongly support. I urge Members, and especially my hon. Friends, to support the Government motion.

Patrick Cormack: I have a personal regard for the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), but that was a patronising speech; it did not do her justice, and it was an insult to the House.
	This afternoon, we are debating Parliament. I do not want to bang on about Europe, as the right hon. Lady inelegantly put it. I want to bang on about Parliament, because I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), remember the days when we in this House truly did debate issues. He and I were first elected in June 1970. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had been out of the House by then and she came back, so she remembers even earlier times in this Chamber. Two Bills that we debated then, ad infinitum as it seemed at the time, will always remain in my mind: the industrial relations Bill that the Heath Government introduced in 1970 and the Bill that took this country into the Common Market, as it was then called—both of which my right hon. Friend and I gladly supported, and would do again. We debated at great length, often through the night, and dozens of amendments were moved with eloquence and skill by Opposition Members—who were then Labour Members. I will never forget the oratory of people such as Eric Heffer and John Mendelson. We new Conservative Members, sitting on the Government Benches and supporting the Executive, found them tiresome, but what were they doing? They were behaving like true parliamentarians; they were holding the Executive to account.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend be careful to remind the Government that his point applies to all that they have done to weaken Parliament since they came to power? It is a criticism of permanent guillotines, shorter hours, and asking for more money for doing less work and not holding the Government to account.

Patrick Cormack: It is, indeed, and my right hon. Friend makes many of the points I was seeking to make—so I shall, perhaps, now make them more briefly.
	The current Government treat Parliament with contempt. The Conservative Government who were in power for 18 years did, from time to time, introduce guillotines, which I did not always support; I voted against them on a number of occasions because I thought that they were wrong. I believe that it is almost always wrong to curtail debate in this Chamber, although I accept that a Government, who have a mandate from the country, do at the end of the day deserve to get their business through. However, within a year of this Government coming to power, we had moved towards the automatic timetabling of every Bill. Now, whenever a Bill receives its Second Reading, the next motion on the Order Paper is that that Bill shall be timetabled. We are told when it will leave this Chamber, when it will come out of Committee and when its Report stage will finish. If our hours were open ended, that would not be so bad, but as it comes side by side with the change in parliamentary hours many pieces of proposed legislation go to the other place having been very imperfectly scrutinised here, and sometimes with whole sections of them not having been debated at all.

Barry Sheerman: Is the hon. Gentleman not in danger of being a little selective in his recollections? He and I remember past years—certainly the 18 years when his party was in Government—and, without being partisan, is it not true to say that there has been a steady decline in the freedom of the House, as there has been an increasing use of Whips, and of timetable motions such as the one we are debating? That is not new to this Government; there is a process that we can catalogue. Also, the hon. Gentleman said there were great debates in former years, but is he not being unfair to the excellent debate of last Monday? I heard some fantastic speeches then, including one from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is a scarce bird on his party's Benches because his views on Europe are very unpopular with other Conservative Members.

Patrick Cormack: I was tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way. Of course there has been a steady erosion in Parliament's role—I made that point—but the current Government are the ones who brought in automatic timetabling.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to last Monday's debate and I agree that, from the point of view of oratory, it was a debate of quality, but Members' speeches were restricted to eight minutes, and I do not believe that it is consistent with the best form of parliamentary democracy to have tight limits on speeches. It was also, in all, only a five-hour debate on issues of such importance, because there were two statements. When we debated whether we should join the Common Market, we discussed the matter for a week, day after day after day. Last week, we should at the very least have had a two-day debate—and I completely agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we should have two days for this Bill's Third Reading debate.
	Members are parties to an emasculation of our own powers. I do not refer to the Modernisation Committee when I am chatting with friends; to me, it is the "Emasculation Committee", because it has taken away powers from this Chamber in so many particulars. I believe that the automatic timetabling of debate is the worst thing that has happened to Parliament in the past decade.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: indicated assent.

Patrick Cormack: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Lady, who is a great parliamentarian, and who has done a great deal to uphold the honour and dignity of this House during her time in it.
	We are today faced with an absurd motion, because the Government are again breaking their promise. I have twice in this House questioned the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, by asking him what he is going to do about this Bill when it comes before us if we are not to have a referendum. My own position on referendums is that I would prefer that we had not departed down that road in 1975, but we have now established a precedent for holding referendums on constitutional issues, and this issue certainly qualifies. However, if anything might have made me waver and return to my former belief, it would have been the Prime Minister saying, "There will be no timetable. There will be an adequate and proper opportunity for Parliament to debate and discuss the treaty and all its ramifications, as it will bind this country for a long time to come."
	Although there are many aspects of this treaty that I personally do not find offensive, I cannot say that it is inconsequential or unimportant: it is very consequential and very important, and we should have a proper opportunity to discuss it. That the Prime Minister has produced this timetable motion is an abdication of his pledge to put Parliament back at the centre of our national life.
	Here we have before us this ridiculous and insulting series of propositions, meaning that, on these various days, we will have one and a half hours to debate however many amendments have been tabled. I think it was the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey who said that tomorrow, 27 amendments are down. You will barely have a chance to read them, Madam Deputy Speaker—or whoever is in the Chair—because there will not be an opportunity to debate and discuss 27 amendments.
	It is vital, in dealing with issues of major importance, that Front Benchers have a reasonable time to explain the propositions they are putting before the House and to take interventions. The Minister was exemplary in that regard this afternoon, but as I pointed out earlier—my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) referred to this in his excellent speech—he took virtually an hour and a half just to deal with that. If we are to have adequate Front-Bench speeches of explanation, and adequate, probing Opposition Front-Bench speeches—I include both Opposition parties—that seek to expose the fallacies of whatever is before us, what time is there, then, for Back Benchers to come in? It is utterly crucial that Parliament does not hand over not only all Executive authority, but all prime debating time to those on the two Front Benches.

Simon Hughes: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he also agree that we need to make a wider change? When there is a treaty for Parliament to agree, should we not have a procedure that allows us to examine it, as well as the legislation implementing it?

Patrick Cormack: Yes, I entirely go along with that, but I want to come back—I do want to be called out of order; that would be terrible, Madam Deputy Speaker—to the motion before us, which to me is utterly and absolutely unacceptable.
	The amendment, as put down by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, is barely better. It is better, because it provides for six more days, but that allocation still is within the constraints of time. It divides the six hours into three and three, rather than four and a half and one and a half, and in most subjects that is probably better. However, it is still a very imperfect instrument, and I would much rather, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) would, that we debated this in the old way and had amendments that could be properly tabled and fully discussed.

John Gummer: In stating that conclusion, does my hon. Friend not agree with me that it is even more important for those of us who do not believe in referendums, and who in fact think this a perfectly reasonable treaty, to have the time to discuss that? Does he not agree that it is not just a question of providing for people who disagree, but of providing a sensible parliamentary base for those who do agree to put forward their arguments?

Patrick Cormack: Of course it is, and I did refer to this issue in passing while my right hon. Friend was briefly out of the Chamber. I am one of those who are midway between the party's official position and his. I find much of this treaty acceptable, and some of it I do not. However, the fact is that if it is going to be debated in a parliamentary forum, and if the people are not to be given the chance to have a say—as I believe they should, because of the precedent that has been set—there must be the fullest possible debate and scrutiny. The right hon. Member for Leicester, West talked about people becoming disillusioned with Parliament. They are disillusioned, not mainly for the reasons to which she alluded, but because Parliament has indeed been emasculated. We are a minor talking shop on the fringe of British politics—that is what we have become during the last decade.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: No; perhaps later. I find that deeply depressing and deeply distressing, because this Chamber should be the cockpit of the nation. This Chamber should be full at the moment. One of the main reasons why it is not—of course there are other causes, such as conflicting demands on time and televisions in Members' offices; one knows about all those things—is that people do not feel any more that what they say in here really will count. They certainly know that their comments will not be reported in the press tomorrow morning, because all the press have abandoned proper parliamentary coverage. That is another significant and regrettable development of the last two or three decades.
	However, those of us who believe passionately in Parliament—who want this place to function, and who believe that it can be brought back more or less to where it was in terms of influence—should make a real point of attacking motions such as the one before us. I am extremely sorry that an articulate and excellent Minister such as the one who will reply to this debate, a man for whom I have a great deal of time, is party to such an appalling Executive conspiracy.
	What we are really talking about tonight is not a particular Bill, but a principle—the principle of the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature. Where, as in our country, the Executive is drawn from the legislature, there is an underlying right—I referred to it earlier—for the Executive to get their business, but not at the expense of scrutiny and debate. We have to hold the Executive, from whichever party they come—

Rob Marris: rose—

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman was not here at the time, but I sometimes made life a bit miserable for some Ministers in a Conservative Government, and I made no apology for that, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) did, and he was very good at that. However, the fact is that we were acting as we saw it—perhaps we were wrong sometimes, nobody is perfect or infallible—and we were doing what we conceived to be our parliamentary duty. That duty has been taken away from us by the move to automatic timetabling, and particularly by the motion before us tonight.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), because I find myself in agreement with so much of his speech. He will understand that that is not always the case—on matters cultural, yes; on matters political, not always. However, the points that he made are important ones.
	Sometimes, we in this House mislead ourselves by thinking that those who vote for us automatically understand what we do in Parliament. They do not really understand the procedures of the Houses of Commons and Lords. They do not understand the creation of a law, or the fact that non-lawyers can sit here and debate in great detail aspects of governance that affect our constituents at every stage of their lives. They rely, in an unspoken pact, on those who are elected to the House of Commons to represent their interests. That is what we are here for, and what they expect of us. They also rely on us to look closely at the work of the Executive, and to fulfil our responsibility in understanding what the Executive are proposing and how it will be translated into statutes and the law of the land.
	Frankly, I am not surprised that the press do not take a great interest in procedure and timetabling when we talk about that, because many people outside here do not understand that control of procedure in this place is what gives real power to those who manage our agenda. If, as a member of the Whips Office or a Cabinet Committee, someone manages to decide when their Bill is to be debated and how long for, who will sit on the Committee to debate it, when it will come back to the House and what will happen to it when it reaches another place, that gives them considerable advantages and, in some instances, can determine whether the Bill will get on to the statute book. When Members of Parliament are confronted with a timetable motion, they must ask themselves who will benefit from the procedure. They must ask who will get the advantage from ensuring that this House, which contains myriad different views on the political implications of this treaty, debates the matter at sufficient length for the people outside this House to understand the implications of what we are doing.
	I am concerned about the timetable motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who is no longer in her place, was concerned that we were debating, raising points of order, disturbing the Minister and taking time. She felt that was not a serious way of proceeding to examine the substance of the debate, yet it is exactly what Members of Parliament are supposed to do. We are supposed to ask the Minister handling the Bill why they think that they have given us sufficient time closely to examine what is in the legislation. We should ask why the Minister thinks we are so worried about not having sufficient time to debate it.
	There are as many different views in the Conservative party about European legislation as there are in the Labour party. The Liberal Democrats may even have some differing views—I am not sure about that, but they have an endearing habit of inconsistency. Therefore, we ought to understand that we ought to have the right to express those views in this Chamber. I do not expect to agree with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) or the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was my pair in a previous life. I can honestly say that it was a good idea that we were paired, because we did not agree on anything. The reality is that the House of Commons ought to examine the transfer of powers, the behaviour and rights of sovereign Governments, the constant and encroaching demands of European institutions across the board and the way in which those institutions introduce directives and regulations, and decide what will happen in so many of our basic industries.
	We ought to debate such things in this Chamber, not anywhere else. We ought not to rely upon television studios or articles in the press. The debate that means that the arguments can be tested ought to take place here. Let somebody argue with me about the strength of my views here, where I can be interrupted, where people can question and where they can put on the record the things about which they think I am wrong. We are not going to be given the chance to have that debate.
	I am concerned because the Labour party has always fundamentally believed in the free and fair treatment of human rights, yet in the chase for management control we are doing exactly those things that I would find wholly unacceptable in a Government of any other colour. It therefore behoves us to make it clear why we are so concerned tonight. The Minister for Europe is an engaging young man, and he perhaps gave us a little hint as to what the reasons are. He said that during the Maastricht debate the Chamber had been the resort of two or three lonely souls. If any individual Member of Parliament is not able to raise their own views either in here, even in an empty Chamber, or elsewhere in the House and demand that they are answered by a Minister, I will know fully and finally that we have come to the end of our democratic representation.
	I say to Ministers that of course it is more convenient to be able to restrict debate and it is always more comfortable for them to get their legislative programme on to the statute book in the way that they want, but they are saying to the House that they have changed the procedure, they are going to have thematic debates and hon. Members will be able to vote on their amendments afterwards—how very convenient.
	I love thematic debates and have no difficulty in taking part in them, but the reality is that in this place what matters is what goes on to the statute book, and that is framed in amendments, although they may frequently be confused and sometimes not very well drafted. That is what makes the law, that is what we are here to do and that is where our responsibility lies. Those who genuinely think that they can manage a matter of this importance, whatever one's view, as though it were an agenda for a business meeting, betray their commitment not only to the House of Commons but to the democratic system.
	We believe in democracy and ask for our constituents' trust because we know that we have a responsibility not to frame unfair, badly drafted, incompetent and wholly unacceptable laws—that is what we are here to guard against. This Parliament did not create itself overnight. It took many hundreds of years before we reached the stage where we were able to do that on an equal basis and in a responsible way that makes the world outside listen to us and talk about the mother of Parliaments. That, to me, is what matters. I came here many years ago because I believed that the House of Commons was the place where we took responsibility for writing, debating and understanding the laws, and for looking after the interests of our constituents and our voters. Those who bring forward a blatant piece of management, such as this timetable motion, seek to undermine that responsibility and it does them no credit.

Richard Shepherd: My heart leaps when I behold the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rising in her place, as of course it does when I behold my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack).
	This debate is essentially about our constitution, our freedoms and liberties and our procedures. The former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), had, in the fat years of new Labour, grown used to seeing this place merely as a Chamber for public announcements. That is what we have become and that is what we reduce ourselves to. How can the Government conceive of such a new procedure to address fundamental propositions that are to become the law of this land in a process that seeks to bind us and to override, in a sense, parliamentary sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the people? They do not trouble themselves to stop and ask, "But who do we represent?" If I tell people something, how do they protest against it? I will have to turn round and say that it is put in a tablet that rises far beyond this Chamber and is more important than us here.
	To construct something such as this motion is shaming for a Government. They have lost their rationale and sense of purpose, and in doing so they make us open to being an object of contempt. God save the health service after the speech by the right hon. Lady, the former Health Secretary. What was she saying? She has had many chats with her constituents who apparently say that they want to hear Parliament discuss thematic schemes. Perhaps they do, but I have constituents who also want the death penalty back and who want all manner of things discussed. Such things are reflected in the motion before us, because it refers to a charter of rights. Among those things is the supremacy or otherwise—I do not know where it stands in this—of the European convention on human rights. We are charged, as was rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and the noble lady, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich —[Interruption.] It is true, she is noble. She reminds us of why we are here. We noted and then, I am sorry to say, largely ignored the exposition by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). It is so creeping to support the position of one's Government on something that he, as a solicitor representing a client, would not accept as the basis for a deal.
	I remind the House that the most intelligent breakdown of the issues at stake, to take just home affairs and justice—which we are supposed to consider tomorrow—was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). His exposition should be sent to every Member of Parliament. Someone also made the observation that many of these contentions would, under our normal processes, have to be introduced as individual measures in the form of a Bill, but they are now all rolled up into one.
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when he was briefly the Chief Secretary, seemed to toy with the idea that we could not even reject taxation—the very cause that fired the 17th century. In the 18th century, the slogan "no taxation without representation" held a strong power. He did not even understand the constitutional basis, but he tried to tell us about the management of the Maastricht Bill. He also told us—we heard it time and again from those on the Front Bench—about Mrs. Thatcher's rebate. He was 14 at the time. Do he and the others behind this motion really know the history of their country? Do they understand the vitality and vigour with which the Crown had to be captured? Now the Government flaunt themselves before us, demanding that we cut down consideration to that which they alone have judged to be correct.
	There are no wise heads now in great Departments of state. I do not know what clever young man or woman came up with this shaming construct, but where was the reasonableness of the sane, experienced politician, someone who had enjoyed the honour of the great offices of state, to say, "This will not do"? We did not even see this motion—this profound change in the manner in which we address a great constitutional issue—until last Wednesday. Do we honestly think that that is appropriate?
	I sincerely hope that the motion is defeated, but if it is not, tomorrow we are expected to conform with it and to debate and dispense with the most profoundly important issues—criminal law and justice, the central responsibilities with which we are charged. There is no way that this House, in a rational mood, should accept that, but we have become so partisan.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, the Government now even try to equate their systematic guillotining of every Bill with the years of Mrs. Thatcher. I used to follow the issue closely, but it does not need to be followed closely any more because there is now a sledgehammer beating away at our traditional liberties. If we are personalising the debate to one Prime Minister, we could say that Mrs. Thatcher guillotined about 42 Bills. That required some 63 guillotine motions, because in those days it was necessary to show respect to the other place. When it accepted an amendment, we had to consider it. This impatient Government will have none of that. After an hour or an hour and a half of debate, they bat Lords amendments straight back. The Executive want to ensure that they get their business.
	The first decision was on the hours of the House and how long we should sit, but it should have been the other way round. The question should be what business do we have to do, and then we can ask how many hours are necessary to consider it. Ministers seem to think that 36, or even 50, hours of discussion of a Bill, even one that covers such a range of issues, is wholly adequate. Almost every free contributor to this debate—by which I mean even the good fellows who try to support their Front-Bench colleagues through thick and thin—must know that this has gone too far.
	All three parties, and now the Scottish Nationalists, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and now even the Welsh Assembly, want a referendum on this issue, but the one thing that the Government promised is not in the motion. We do not know whether a referendum amendment will be selected. It should have been a Government amendment to honour their promise, but everyone knows that they are hoping it will not appear on the Order Paper. Every hon. Member knows that millions of men and women will think, in the back of their minds, that their representative asked for their vote predicated on the undertaking that if this treaty were approved, the people would be the ultimate determinants of its fate.
	The failure to respect that undertaking is a big breach of a solemn understanding. It troubles the Liberal Democrats, as we have heard. They have constructed a new theology on the point, and we all heard the remarkable contribution by their leader. He said that he would vote against the Government on a referendum clause, except if they were going to lose, in which case he would vote with the Government. These are matters of high principle, and the knockabout sounds childish and trivial, but that is why this House is marginalised too often—it is not even held in contempt, but marginalised. We have become the backcloth for the Executive to parade around our Parliament, the country and the world. The House no longer engages in debates of substance, such as whether these general thematic debates should take precedence over the very substance of the Bill—the clause stand part debates and so on that should inform the general debate. We should hear the arguments and then have the general debate. That was a point well made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. We have things the wrong way round.
	As for the marginal point—it is not a marginal point, but it is treated as one—that Mr. Speaker could, in case of a national emergency, elect to address in precedence to the business of the day, the Minister failed to understand that if the Government protected the business, it would not matter if three hours were taken out at the beginning of the day because it could be added on at the end. We struggled to get that simple point through to the Minister for Europe.
	I am not surprised that the Foreign Secretary is elsewhere engaged. He has had a rough time in the exchanges on the Floor of the House. His enthusiasm for the causes that he knows are so right and just disables him from understanding that these are matters of passion, of justice and of the credibility of this House. We should, as Members of Parliament, get the Government to revert to the old process, by which such matters are properly and effectively discussed.

Andrew Miller: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I respect the sincerity of his views, but I do not think that they take into account the reality of how the world is structured today and how communications buzz around the world as quickly as light. The relationship between this House and every other Parliament and constituents has changed to such a degree that we need to reflect on it. It requires us to rethink our procedures, both for debates such as this and in respect of many other things that we do in the House. It has always been my view that the principal weapon of opposition in the modern age is not time but timing. We can have that debate some other time. I respect the views that he expressed.

Graham Brady: If the principal weapon of opposition should be timing, is the hon. Gentleman concerned about the prescribed division of each day into four and a half hours of debate on general principles and one and a half hours of debate on amendments? Surely he should agree with us that the Opposition should have freedom and flexibility.

Andrew Miller: I would need to drift away from the subject before us to answer that. My point had to do with how Bills are dealt with in Committee Upstairs—huge amounts of time are spent dragging us through them sentence by sentence rather than principle by principle. If the Opposition dealt with the principles and timed their attacks correctly, they would be more effective. I have always taken that view because of my relationship with a huge number of people in the communications world, in which I have a modest amount of expertise. It is just a starting observation.
	On a slightly lighter point, I was amused by the attempt made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to create a union between the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Perhaps Opposition Members could not see from their seats, but from here I saw that the union resulted in the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe looking a bit like the blushing bride or—perhaps more appropriately in his case—as though he had had a good night out at Ronnie Scott's. He was deeply embarrassed by the assertion.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a perfectly fair point about the rationale behind the themed debates. Given that he and I are not a million miles apart on the substance of the treaty, that point ought to be subject to more serious debate this evening. I looked rather carefully at the themes from the outset, because I wondered what the logic was, and I have identified a rationale. I shall not deal with all the points made, because it is not fair to hon. Members wanting to contribute to this debate—

Rob Marris: Oh, go on.

Andrew Miller: —tempted as I may be by my hon. Friend.
	On justice and home affairs, for example, the UK has a huge amount to gain from working with EU partners to tackle cross-border challenges such as illegal migration, organised crime and terrorism. I think that we would agree on that point, and I think that we would also agree that the international dimension of those issues means that we can help other countries to help solve some of our problems.
	For example, I have a long-standing relationship with political parties in Malta, because I spent a big chunk of my childhood there. As colleagues know, Malta has enormous problems as a result of illegal immigration and human trafficking in the Mediterranean by organised criminals; those problems stretch beyond the resources of that small country. If there was not European co-operation to help that small nation address the serious, important human tragedies that affect many of those illegal immigrants—if we did not seek to address those problems on a pan-European basis—it would not only be irresponsible, but would worsen our difficulties in places such as the constituency of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey; no place is a better example. There has to be a pan-European dimension. It is vital that, in the debate on that theme, we have a structured discussion that enables us to explore how the treaty will enable co-operation.

Rob Marris: I think that the motion gives us sufficient time to discuss the issues that my hon. Friend raises. On Malta, I have a constituent who claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. Through our co-operation with Malta, we found out that she had claimed asylum in Malta four years ago. She had to be deported to Malta, her first port of call. We already have that sort of co-operation, but we need to explore the issue further in the time for debate on that theme, which I think is sufficient.

Andrew Miller: Of course I accept that point. Most importantly, the treaty makes it crystal clear that the UK will be able to choose whether to participate on justice and home affairs measures, which cover visas, immigration, asylum, judicial and police co-operation, and criminal matters. A debate of substance ought to take place on that, and I can certainly see the argument for it being partly the subject of a themed debate.
	The same is true of energy. My constituency springs to mind; it is a significant energy user because of the chemical industry there. We need a proper, structured solution to the unfairness in the energy markets across Europe; nowhere is that felt more keenly than in north-west England. The Lisbon treaty provides the EU with a dedicated legal base from which to tackle the liberalisation of the energy market, so that we can promote renewables and so on. That must be good. That is a powerful reason why energy ought to be the subject of part of the themed debates. I could take the House through the other sections of the motion, but in fairness to other colleagues who want to speak, I shall not.
	I hope that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey will accept that although one can come up with all sorts of arguments about how such debates ought to be structured, there is some sort of rationale justifying the approach that has been taken.

Rob Marris: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am to hear some Members of the official Opposition putting a view reminiscent of the view taken by far-left Labour Members 30 years ago, which my hon. Friend will remember? Their attitude was to have no timetable for anything, in the hope that the good folk in the Labour party would leave and the nutty lefties would be able to control the agenda at the end of the evening, at 2 o'clock in the morning.
	Similarly, there has been a backward-looking lack of recognition in today's debate that an MP's role has changed. Of course, Members on both sides of the House must scrutinise the Government, but we must also accept that we have a growing volume of constituency duties. To hold open-ended debates that run through the night is not a good way to scrutinise the Government, as it effectively eliminates those who wish to do a good job for their constituencies as well, and cannot be here all the time.

Andrew Miller: It comes back to the point that I made about the use of timing rather than time. I do not suppose any right hon. or hon. Member, however long they have been here, has received many letters from constituents saying, "Congratulations. It was really good to see you on your feet at 3 am." Most people think that that is a daft way of conducting business, and believe that we ought to look at things slightly differently.
	My hon. Friend the Minister implied that the Government had got the allocation of time about right. I want to explore that gently with him, and I invite the House to look at the procedures adopted by other countries. Ireland is an obvious exception, because it is bound constitutionally to adopt the process. One country has already ratified the treaty—Hungary, which spent less time debating the treaty than we have spent debating procedure this evening. No hon. Member will say that the approach adopted by Hungary, with its extraordinary history, is less democratic than ours. It is different, and there are differences from which we can learn. The most significant difference is that the official Opposition—the Fidesz alliance, which is a Conservative grouping—agreed with the Government that the treaty should go through. There was no attempt by the Opposition to oppose the treaty just because they were the Opposition: they took a responsible approach as a result of negotiations that took place not in a few hours on the floor of the Hungarian Parliament but over a number of years, and began with the process that resulted in Hungary's accession to the EU—in which I played a small part.
	The process in Hungary was profoundly different from the one adopted here, and from the one adopted in Ireland. I suspect that as the rest of the countries undertake their own procedures, there will be a spectrum of approaches. However, there will not be many countries, if any, that spend more hours than us dealing with the matter in their debating chamber. There are many other types of Committee process. On reflection, when we look at this in future, perhaps we will see whether there are any lessons to be learned from the processes adopted elsewhere.

Richard Shepherd: I am sorry if my intervention keeps the hon. Gentleman going, but of what relevance are other countries' constitutional procedures to our own common law-based procedure, as opposed to their civil law tradition, and of what relevance is the matter to the motion?

Andrew Miller: Ireland has a common law system, but every other country is different.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, it will have a referendum—that is built into its constitution. Perhaps hon. Members have not noticed that we do not have such a constitution. It is relevant to look at other countries, because we live in a global society. To ignore things that happen in other countries is to do a disservice to our country and to our constituents. That may be the Conservative way of doing things, but I do not think that it is the correct way of doing them.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills criticised the process for debate, and argued that it was wrong to hold a general debate followed by one on amendments, because we have always done it the other way round. However, he did not provide any logic to explain why it was wrong. I take his point—it is a different process—but I did not hear any logical arguments. His defence appears to be: "We do it this way, because that is how we do it", rather than because it is the right way.

Richard Shepherd: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to use up time, because of the paucity of speakers on the Government side, but that point was made more succinctly and effectively by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).

Andrew Miller: I accept that the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made a succinct case, which is why I did not criticise his observations. I was criticising the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who made an impassioned plea, but there was no logic to his case. That is why I was picking on his view.

Richard Shepherd: I apologise to those present in the Chamber, but that is simply absurd. This is a debating Chamber, and we build on other people's arguments. To shorten speeches, we often accept that argument, because we believe that the case has already been made. I know that the hon. Gentleman believes that he must labour every point to the end of time, but we will wait for him to understand and bring together some of the arguments that are germane to his case and accord with the views of many hon. Members.

Andrew Miller: For someone who is labouring the point, perhaps I should resist giving in, and stop taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman. The logic of the case made by those who have spoken against the motion is that the debates on the substance of the treaty occur in isolation, and are remote from many other debates on all those themes, subjects and chapter headings. Debates do not take place in isolation, and I will illustrate my point with a rather extreme example. Most hon. Members can readily predict which way the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will vote.

Simon Burns: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) never disagrees with the Government.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman cannot be certain about that.

Simon Burns: He wants to be a Minister— [ Interruption. ]

Andrew Miller: That is a very generous offer, but not on his side.
	These debates do not occur in isolation. We know precisely where most people stand. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made an interesting observation, when she said that this is the place to look after our constituents. I agree with her, but we do not look after them by holding endless debates about process. We should focus on the themes established in the motion. I have some differences with Ministers.

Mark Harper: The Minister is worried now.

Andrew Miller: They know about them. Those differences concern certain aspects of the way in which they are tackling matters that are dealt with inside the EU. For example, the Government need to address the long-standing problem of temporary and agency workers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman save that for another occasion. We should stick with the motion and amendment before the House.

Andrew Miller: I did not accept the logic of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), which was discussed earlier. That was the context in which I made my comment, which I was not going to develop. My hon. Friend's amendment does not lead to a solution on employment rights, and his argument that we should have a separate debate on fundamental human rights is flawed.
	The choice of debates should reflect issues of national importance. There are opportunities in the way in which the debates have been structured to address fundamental issues of national importance such as energy and climate change, which affect our constituents. I therefore argue that the approach is about right.
	The Conservative amendment is an attempt to finesse the Government motion, and there is an argument about which way is best. However, the Government's approach will work, because it will result in a series of meaningful debates, which I hope considerably more hon. Members will participate in than will participate in this slightly tedious debate about procedure.
	I apologise for having taken so long to explain my point.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) has summarised his argument effectively. He thinks that the debates on the Bill should be about matters of national importance and that Labour Members should decide which issues are of national importance. Those issues will then be imposed on this House, and if anybody else in the Chamber thinks that there are matters of national importance that the debates do not address, then that will be tough.

Andrew Miller: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who spoke at considerable length. We gave him plenty of rope, which he used effectively—his speech was dire. The exchanges between the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) showed how democracy in this House is intended to evolve according to new Labour. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that we should discuss things not "sentence by sentence" but "principle by principle". How can anyone who has the least tendency to discuss issues of legality separate sentences from principles? That is what they do in new Labour, however, which is why the Government have tabled this appalling motion.
	The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston assumes that he knows what it is best to discuss, as do the Government, who tabled the motion. For example, he has explained that energy is an important issue, but who should decide what this House discusses? The Members of this House should decide that. The beauty of the old-fashioned, outdated and passé Committee stages of Bills is that the Clerks and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the amendments into a logical order, so the issues themselves have the merit of determining the nature of the discussion or the order in which the discussion takes place, rather than having the Executive do it for their own convenience.
	I was amused when the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) discussed the disillusion with which people greet debates in this House and politicians generally. It was not Conservative Members but the Government who chose to table this technical, nit-picking procedural motion. All Executives have an agenda of trying to downgrade and downplay the importance of those who are meant to hold them to account. That is the nature of office, which is why Margaret Thatcher and John Major passed guillotines, but the trend has been getting worse. On that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) ably and passionately pointed out the great traditions of this House, and I congratulate him on his speech.
	I will support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), albeit that it is highly unsatisfactory; I was extremely relieved to hear that my entire party will vote against the whole principle behind the construction of the timetable. I am not a luddite about timetables, but they have their problems. One disadvantage is that they enfranchise people who just want to fill time, because there is limited time to fill. They also tend to curtail discussion, often at a very interesting point, which is another disadvantage.
	I am not opposed to timetables in principle. I was a shadow Constitutional Affairs Minister when we considered the Scotland Act 1998. I persuaded my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to get the usual channels working, because we knew that there would be a guillotine, which is more unsatisfactory than a timetable that reflects as much consensus around the House as possible.
	Before my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills starts rumbling, I have full sympathy for his point that any kind of timetable is a disadvantage—we have encountered the disadvantages—but we agreed to a timetable on the Scotland Act 1998, which was an innovation. We proceeded on the basis that the great principle had already been settled in a referendum, which is not the case with the Lisbon treaty, and that we could agree where the knives would fall throughout the day in order to facilitate discussion and to move it on to a variety of topics, which is nothing like what we have here. The Maastricht debates took place under the old system, and although the Prime Minister has invited scrutiny, this programme and the arrangements for the Maastricht debates cannot be compared. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his assurances.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks has pointed out the utter inadequacy of the time allowed to debate justice and home affairs, which have been forced into one debate. We are not discussing a law; we are discussing how laws in this country are made. We are discussing what the founding fathers of the United States constitution took 10 years to agree, but we are being asked to do it in 12 days.
	My right hon. Friend referred to justice and home affairs; furthermore, defence is being truncated with foreign policy. I wish to draw attention to two relevant matters. In defence, we have a major innovation in respect of article 42 of the treaty on European Union: instead of a common security and defence policy that "may" include the progressing of common defence, and "may" lead to common defence, those words are being replaced with "shall" and "will". That is a very major innovation, and the idea that it should be truncated with other matters is extraordinary.
	The Government have consistently assured the House that there would be no duplication of NATO. I would like plenty of time to discuss a mutual security clause that has been inserted into the treaty on European Union under article 42:
	"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power".
	We are embarking on a series of debates in which very large issues are at stake; I have just mentioned a stronger obligation than we have under the NATO treaty. Yet the discussion of that part of the Lisbon treaty is to be truncated and incorporated with a whole lot of other matters. That is, of course, entirely unacceptable.
	We are led to believe that the Government motion has been tabled to help the House. The Minister said that it would give an opportunity to debate all the issues. What opportunity? Perhaps the Minister will address the point when he replies to the debate. What opportunity would we not have if we did not have this form of timetabled debate? What opportunity would this form of debate give that we would not have even if we were discussing amendments rather than having thematic debates? The answer, of course, is that there is no such opportunity. The Minister gave the game away when he said that the motion was to test the Government's policy on the EU generally. The debates are not about that: they are for testing how the treaty will be implemented into United Kingdom law. Under the Government's motion, we will spend less time discussing that than what the Government want to discuss.
	As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, the motion will put the Minister at the Dispatch Box in prime time, at the beginning of every day of debates on the treaty, as the discussion of amendments never would. That is a coincidence, of course; I am sure that the Minister will discover that only as the debates unfold. The Minister will be allowed to speak generally on topics of his own choosing instead of having to address amendments tabled by hon. Members. The Government have clearly been driven to table the motion for presentational reasons.
	Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) told me quietly in the Chamber that a great deal of thought must have gone into how the debate should be structured. I imagine that the spin doctors—although the Prime Minister pretends that he does not have any—had quite a say in the drafting of the motion. They would have been saying, "Look, if we go into a Maastricht-style debate, we'll lose control of the agenda. How can we control the news agenda?" They will control it by having the themed debates; each day, the Government will know exactly what they can say. They will make the case that they want to make, rather than address subjects raised by amendments.
	The thing about amendments, unless they involve the Government clearing up their own mess in a Bill, is that the Government have to answer points made by people who are not in the Government. The beauty of the procedure that the Government have chosen is that the first three hours of every day will be spent debating subjects that they have chosen. It is the complete reversal of how a Committee stage should operate.

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot abide spin doctors or stand being in their presence. I do not know of any discussions such as those that he has mentioned, but I am quite new to this debate. I suspect that one of the reasons behind the motion might be that sometimes—at least in my experience, and I have been in the House for more than 19 years—the procedural debate can eclipse the debate on the substance of a treaty, for example. All too often we do not have a chance to discuss what difference a treaty will make to people's lives.

Bernard Jenkin: I fully endorse the Minister's sentiment, but I would like to make two points. First, if we wanted to elevate the discussion in this country about the general principles of the treaty, we would make sure as a House that we honoured the promise that we all made at the last election—to have a referendum. However, the Government have for some reason abandoned that promise. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that they do not really want to have a debate about the substance of the treaty.
	Secondly, I put it to the Minister that the debates on the Maastricht treaty began with the public being alienated and disengaged from the process in Parliament, but as the treaty was scrutinised in such detail, as the disputes were inevitably covered in the press and on television, and as those disputes were often on matters of very close voting, they began to command public attention and to change public opinion, because in the end the detail of the law matters, as well as the principle.
	I do not want to go on incessantly but just to make the point that the idea that the Government are doing something kind to the public and to this House by seeking to impose their agenda and control the agenda is complete nonsense. They want the opportunity to control the agenda, they are taking the agenda away from more impartial witnesses such as the Speaker's Panel and the Clerks so as to determine the order of events, they are unnaturally restricting the debate on the implementation of the treaty, and in the end they are not only strengthening the case for the other place to have extended and protracted debates on all the matters that will inevitably remain undiscussed in this House but strengthening the case for a referendum.
	It is an irony that the very part of the procedure on day 11 that we hope will allow maximum time for debating the very important question of the referendum is itself being restricted, because the Government do not want discussed the fact that this treaty is almost identical to the constitution. That is the substantive point that the Government are running away from. I ask anybody who disputes that to explain to this House, in the limited time that we have available during these debates—perhaps the Minister can put it in a few words to encourage us to vote for his motion—just what, in a word, is so substantially different in the way that this treaty will operate from the way that the constitution would have operated. I cannot see it; I do not think that anybody can. Yes, we may have different architecture—different pillars, girders and construction—but in the end the building will be the same. Unless the Government can make the case that this treaty will lead to substantially different outcomes than would have arisen from the implementation of the constitution, we will know that their whole position is, frankly, a lie.

William Cash: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is not here, because she got very close to putting her finger on the fundamental question—the absence in the so-called themed debates of crucial issues that need to be addressed. To my mind, the most crucial issue is the implementation of the treaty into United Kingdom law. All that those themes amount to is a collection of discussions that could have taken place in a generalised Adjournment debate of the kind that we had just before Christmas.
	We have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—I am glad to be able to say that—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as well as the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich, for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), and for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) stating brilliantly, in a nutshell, that we are not being given an opportunity to discuss these matters properly.
	We have reached a new nadir—a travesty of Parliament involving the application, in an unprecedented manner, of a new and, as I said earlier in a point of order, controversial innovation that is made that much worse by the manner in which it is being done. It is made that much worse because the new clauses are stuck at the back end of this operation and are to be dealt with on the same day, with only a moment of interruption, as the referendum clause. That means that essential questions that need to be examined will not be, such as the implications for the supremacy of Parliament and the fact that, once the treaty has gone through, based on previous examples, there would be no reversal of the acquis communautaire and no way to reverse it except through the condition set down in my new clauses about
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972".
	Similar considerations apply to the Bill of Rights, but we can deal with those problems when we get to them. I am concerned that under the Government's proposals, such matters will be dealt with at the end of our considerations without proper time for discussion, so it is more than likely that they will be pushed out by discussions on the referendum. If the supremacy of Parliament itself is to be put at that stop-end, there is very little future for this Parliament at all.
	I would like to touch on the fact that, as Ivor Jennings said with respect to the question of conventions, the basis for a convention has to be the reason for the rule. Looking at the manner in which the motion has been put forward, it is impossible to find any rational reason in the context of discussion. Discussion was the system described by Bagehot, whom I think could still be regarded as one of the greatest authorities on Parliament and the constitution, if not the greatest. He said that we have a parliamentary system that is government by parliamentary discussion, and that responsible government is decided by votes on decisions, which rest on confidence and trust. Is this government by discussion? No. Is it responsible government? No. Is there confidence and trust? No, no, no. Implementation of law is not implementation of policy. In the context of procedure, I also cite Main's "Ancient Law", where it was said that justice is to be found in the "interstices of procedure". It is not possible for us to do justice in this House under a procedure of the sort before us today.
	Setting aside the allegations of corruption that currently attract the attention of the media, what we are witnessing today is a true corruption of our democratic system—a reduction of Bagehot's description of government by discussion to a farce. Another great constitutional commentator, Sir Courtney Ilbert, stated:
	"Parliament of the present day has largely reverted in substance to the...Parliaments of the first Edwards under which the King...made the laws".
	That was said in the 20th century and repeated in an important, authoritative text recently, which stated that things are the same today as they were when Sir Courtney Ilbert made his comment. The Stuarts were very little different, hence the rebellion that took place against them in the civil war, and that continued even after 1660, with the removal of James II and what led to the beginnings of our modern system of government. Those are the issues at stake.
	Anyone who thinks that analogies with the 17th century are inappropriate should remember that the powers being arrogated today by the Prime Minister and the European Union—a thoroughly undemocratic body—are in no way different from the kind of powers arrogated by the Stuarts in their own time. Indeed, the secret treaty of Dover was made in return for money that was received from the French explicitly in order to prevent Parliament from being recalled so that there would be no proper discussion. That was what it was all about.
	I believe that as a consequence of the proposals in the motion our parliamentary system is being fatally undermined. I am deeply disturbed by the way in which this motion has been put forward.
	In my judgment, the draining of the well of the clear spring water of our democracy has left at the bottom a fetid sludge that has been dominated by the direction taken by the Government and the Government Whips. The Foreign Secretary refers to our concerns as "institutional navel-gazing". I looked that phrase up— it is described as "profitless meditation". Such consideration is only profitless for those who do not see what is at stake as the Bill is rammed through by the Whips without proper discussion. Direction has been substituted for democratic parliamentary discussion. Parliament is abused and degraded by this process.
	We see the words "advice and consent" in the preamble to every Bill. As Erskine May noted,
	"freedom of speech is so necessary for the making of laws, that if it had never been expressly confirmed, it must still have been acknowledged as inseparable from Parliament, and inherent in its Constitution."
	That was the great Erskine May, and his words are as important now as they were then. To support that view, he quoted a statement by the representatives of the Commons at a conference with the Lords in December 1667:
	"No man can doubt but whatever is once enacted is lawful; but nothing can come into an Act of Parliament, but it must be first affirmed or propounded by somebody; so that if the Act can wrong nobody, no more can the first propounding. The members must be as free as the Houses: an Act of Parliament cannot disturb the state; therefore the debate it tends to cannot; for it must be propounded and debated before it can be enacted."
	The language may be somewhat arcane, but that quotation is highly relevant to our purposes today.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend share the concern that the treaty transfers significant, crucial powers away from Parliament to the European Union—powers on the common fisheries policy, employment, transport, rail, air travel, space policy and matters concerning the charter of fundamental rights—and the motion does not even allow us to debate those specific issues?

William Cash: That concerns me deeply. That is precisely why I am looking back at the manner in which our procedures have developed and demonstrating the fact that those important constitutional authorities have as much relevance to the present day as they did in their own time. This Parliament has been going for centuries and has developed those principles. We should be living by them now.
	The most recent edition of "Erskine May" reaffirms that what I have just said remains true, as it says, up to the present time:
	"The principal common characteristic of the rules of practice [as they emerged from the seventeenth century and still form the groundwork of procedure] was to provide ample opportunity for debate and for initiative in choosing subjects for debate, and ample safeguards against business being taken without due notice so that decisions could not be reached without opportunities for full consideration being given."
	That is what "Erskine May" says today. That is what is at stake and what the Government are completely overriding. In the words of Sir Edward Coke, a former Speaker and seasoned parliamentarian,
	"the course of this House is to deliberate well before we order".
	Bagehot's claim goes further. It is that, in a parliamentary regime, the function of government takes place in the House by way of discussion. The programme motion denies that to us.
	The Bill is more important and extensive than the Maastricht treaty, yet there is less time for discussing it. There is no general sense of crisis in the country, but there is unease. Sixty-four per cent. of people want a referendum because they do not trust Parliament, and that is our fault. Inadequate discussion means that the position will get worse and European laws will not be properly debated.
	The European Communities Act 1972 is at the root of the problem. We have had invasions of law from the Romans, the Danes, the Normans, the Stuarts and through canon law. We created a democracy in the late 18th, the 19th and especially the 20th centuries, which has been the bastion of freedom for western civilisations. Now, we are going back, like ectoplasm, into a dark age through reverting to procedures that override our fundamental freedom of speech and proper discussion, which is the means whereby the people can be governed. The motion will prevent that proper discussion, and the Government and Parliament will be condemned for it.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I congratulate him on the quotations that he used to show the development of our parliamentary democracy over the years and on his reference to "Erskine May".
	I have great respect for the Minister for the Middle East, who will reply to the debate. May I request of him that he heed the contributions of some of the longest serving and most experienced Members of the House? I refer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is one of the most outstanding Labour parliamentarians. Her long service in the House and the outstanding service that she has given her constituents in two constituencies in her parliamentary career are greatly appreciated. I also refer to the impassioned and outstanding speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He shares with me a true love of Parliament and a belief that this mother of all Parliaments is critical to the success of our democratic system.
	Unfortunately, the House no longer carries the authority or power that it should because it has been undermined by the Executive. It has been said that the Chamber is now irrelevant because the Executive of the day—currently the Labour Government—are likely to get their way, through the use of Whips and other means, even in a debate such as the current one, on a business motion, unless sufficient members of the Government party are prepared to put this country's interests ahead of their career and possible preferment.
	I do not make my next remarks immodestly. I took a decision nearly 37 years ago that I believed in Parliament, the integrity of Members of Parliament and the important independence of this place in a democratic system. Consequently, as has been said by one or two others, I have never had the benefit or advantage of preferment. I do not care about that. I can sleep soundly at night, because whenever I took a decision against my party, I did so because I believed that I was right and that what I was doing was in the best interests of those whom I served. There have been others, such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and, from time to time, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Again, will the Minister appreciate the clearly illustrated experience and length of service of a number of those of us who have contributed to this debate?
	I am totally opposed to this business motion, because it betrays everything that the political parties in the House said at the last election. I shall not speak at any length on the referendum. However, it would have been appropriate for all the parties that said at the last election that if there was a constitutional treaty—albeit not necessarily the constitutional treaty that was defeated in referendums in France and the Netherlands—they would put it to the people of this country in a referendum to do just that. However, the parties are failing to do so. I greatly and sincerely regret that decision, because people in this country no longer trust Parliament.
	Whereas in the old days Members of Parliament, perhaps because of their independent means, would take an independent position and vote accordingly, irrespective of their party, today that occurs less and less. Yes, we have those such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, as well as some in the Opposition, too, but there are far too few of them.
	This motion is misguided and is an abuse of the House. I would normally hesitate to say this, but to my mind this sort of tactic would not have been untypical of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Such a tactic is shameful and an abuse of the House.
	The Government have conceded that there are provisions in the general language of the treaty that could be damaging to the United Kingdom. However, although they claim to have secured protection for this country, through special protocols and opt-outs—the then Prime Minister Tony Blair set out the red lines to the Liaison Committee on 18 June 2007—they will not allow sufficient time for such matters to be debated. There are serious doubts about the effectiveness of the safeguards in each of those areas, and I do not need to say that the European Scrutiny Committee, among others, has drawn attention to them.
	It is utterly wrong that foreign and defence policy should be taken together in this business motion, because the potential role of the EU in shaping and implementing a common foreign and defence policy is being hugely extended under the treaty. Indeed, that was a major objective for many who support the new treaty. The Government claim that they have preserved the requirement for unanimity, enabling the UK to maintain its own independent foreign policy. However, there is no doubt that the intention behind the treaty is increasingly to bring EU members, including the United Kingdom, into line behind a common EU policy, with common representation gradually subsuming the independent national positions of the countries that comprise the EU.
	This treaty matters. It will lead to a fundamentally different European Union from the one that the population we represent in this place has signed up to. There is no evidence that this direction has popular support. Indeed, polling evidence shows consistently that the vast majority of the population would prefer a much looser relationship with Europe, with roughly half opting for the type of relationship that would preserve the benefits of free trade and intergovernmental co-operation while opting out of the project of economic and political union.
	These important issues cannot be adequately debated in the time proposed. If we consider the length of some of the speeches that we have heard today, it is difficult to see how we shall properly be able to scrutinise and debate the large number of amendments that are going to be tabled after the generic debate that will take place each day that these matters are to be debated in the House. The Government have been dishonest. They let it be known last October that there would be 20 days of debate. That figure was leaked in the national broadsheet newspapers. The figure then came down to 15 days, and we now know that it is to be 12. Even then, there will be limits placed on the length of the debates. Is this the proper way to handle a critical issue of constitutional importance?
	I cannot better, or even come anywhere near, the oratory of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Now that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is back in her place, I should like to say that she did a huge service to the House in the debate today. Her experience is legendary, and I believe that she meant every word she uttered this afternoon about how the House is now operating and how it should be operating. I know her well, and I greatly respect her. In this place, we have many common interests and a great deal of common ground. We want this place to work, and we want the people out there whom we represent to trust us and to have confidence in the House of Commons and in Parliament as a whole. At the moment, they do not, because those who are here are, in the main, unable to exercise their own view, their own opinion or their own experience. They are told what to do by Government Whips. I have to say that, on many occasions, my party has been just as responsible for that as the Labour party that is now in government. They are destroying the integrity of this place and the independence of our country, and I want none of it.
	I will vote against the business motion tonight. Yes, I will support the Opposition amendment, because it is a little better—although, as several people have said, only a little. We should have nothing to do with this. We are here to represent this country and its interests, and the interests of our constituents. Poll after poll has indicated that the people do not want this treaty. I make a plea to Members of the House to honour their own instincts and experience and vote properly and independently when we vote later this evening.

Mark Harper: I am very pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).
	The Government's motion allows us too little time to debate the treaty and the Bill, and the way in which they have split up the time is completely undesirable, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said. A huge number of amendments have already been tabled, and there will certainly be many more. We will simply not be able to do them justice, and the House will be abdicating part of its responsibility in expecting the other place to debate the issues that we do not see fit to discuss.
	Not long ago, the House was given far too little time to debate the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Indeed, the Leader of the House admitted that too little time had been given and promised to learn the lessons of that experience. As we look at the motion before us today, it seems that those lessons were not learned—or, if they were, that they were discarded rather too easily. The Opposition proposal for an extra six days of debate therefore has much to commend it.
	I also approve of splitting the time much more equally between debating the detail and what have been termed the more thematic debates. I shall not seek to compete with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose comments carried a great deal of weight, but I rather share her sentiments. Since I became a Member of the House, I have heard a number of Ministers say that the purpose of the law is to send out a message. Well, it is not. Our purpose is to pass laws, which have to be debated in detail. As other hon. Members have pointed out, what happens to people charged with a criminal offence or facing the civil courts will not be decided on the basis of principles, themes or thematic debates. It is the detail and the specific points of law, and hence the quality of the job we do here in Parliament, that makes the difference. That is why it so important that we have enough time to debate these issues in detail.
	There seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Government's case. We contend that this treaty is essentially the same as the constitutional treaty on which a referendum was promised. The Government's justification for not holding a referendum is to extol—not very convincingly, but very loudly—belief in the supremacy of Parliament and the fact that we live in a parliamentary democracy, with the clear implication that it is here and in the other place where these matters should be debated. If we follow that through, those who argue that we should not have a referendum, but should debate these issues in this House should surely want us to have adequate time and flexibility to do so. The Government are trying to have it both ways. They say that it is inappropriate to have a referendum because these matters should be debated in Parliament, yet when it comes to the parliamentary debate, the Government are not prepared to give Parliament the time and flexibility it needs.
	The Liberal Democrats have an interesting policy on how they are going to cast their votes on a referendum, but I believe I heard the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) say earlier that he agreed that the Bill and this treaty did have constitutional significance. Indeed, he said that in arguing why these matters should be debated in a Committee of the whole House. Therefore, it is surely incumbent on the Government to allow a full and proper debate.

Simon Hughes: As the record will show, I said that we have always taken the view that if legislation has constitutional significance, there should be a referendum. However, I also made it clear that once this changed from being a constitutional treaty to an amending treaty, it lost that constitutional status.

Mark Harper: I will check the record tomorrow, as doubtless will the hon. Gentleman. I certainly believe, and the evidence from polling confirms it, that the vast majority of the British people believe that this treaty does have constitutional significance and that there should therefore be a referendum.
	Let me pick up one or two points that arose earlier when the Minister for Europe, who I now see back in his place, was speaking. Paragraph (4) of the business motion deals with Standing Order No. 24, on which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made an interesting ruling. I come back to it not because I believe it is extraordinarily likely on the balance of probabilities that our debates on the treaty will throw something up that will require a debate under that Standing Order, but because an important point of principle is at stake. I suspect that if the motion is passed tonight, it will not be long before other programming motions are presented containing the same clause, and I think that that would be a retrograde step.
	I stand to be corrected by the Minister, but my reading of Standing Order No. 24 and the motion suggests that the motion makes a significant change in removing not just Mr. Speaker's right to make decisions on whether we should have debates, but the right of a Member to rise at the start of business and apply for a debate under the standing order. The motion states that on an allotted day when there is a motion in a Minister's name to discuss the treaty,
	"proceedings shall be taken in accordance with the Table."
	The table makes no provision for a Member to request a debate.
	Standing Order No. 24 provides for an Adjournment debate on
	"a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration."
	If a Member applied for such a debate, and if Mr. Speaker were minded to grant it, it would by definition be on an important matter that should be considered urgently by the House. Given that on most of the allotted days the hours of business are protected, it would surely be appropriate for the debate on the standing order to take place at the start of business on the following day—or, if Mr. Speaker decided that it was sufficiently urgent, later the same day—and for proceedings on the treaty to commence afterwards. I feel that given the frequency with which such urgent matters arise, if a matter were important and urgent enough for Mr. Speaker to see fit to grant a debate, it should take precedence over discussion of the treaty.
	When this issue was raised earlier, the Minister responded to the various points of order and interventions by saying that he was minded to be flexible on such occasions, but however reasonable the Minister is—and he is a reasonable man—it is in the nature of business motions that we do not really want to rely on the reasonableness or otherwise of Ministers. Indeed, it might not be this Minister who happened to be at the Dispatch Box on a future occasion; it might be one of his hon. Friends, who might not be so reasonable. I think that Members would be much happier if paragraph (4) were not there, and it would be helpful if before we embarked on tomorrow's business, another business motion were tabled removing it.

Stephen Pound: I am always pleased to observe that someone else has studied Standing Order No. 24 with the assiduity with which many Labour Members do so. I note the hon. Gentleman's obvious sincerity, following the thunderous sincerity of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). Both have said that there is insufficient time for this matter to be debated. We have heard that the extra six days is a mere pettifogging addition that the hon. Gentleman will spurn. How many weeks, months or—dare I say?—years does he think would be appropriate for us to discuss this reform treaty?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for long enough to hear the rest of the debate rather than coming in at the end, he would have heard the beginning of my speech, in which I said that I was very content to support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which would provide the six extra days. I consider it an improvement on the Government's motion.
	I want to make two more points, relatively briefly. The first—which we raised earlier, but without receiving a satisfactory response—is that it is not clear how long the business will run on days nine, 10 and 11. There appears to be no time limit for day nine; the motion does not even say that the business will run until the moment of interruption, although I assume that that is the case. Day 11 is the critical day, the day on which the Minister himself said we were likely to be given a vote on a referendum, but as things stand the business could be compressed heavily by Government statements. There might be statements on important matters that should rightly be put before the House, but it would be helpful if the Minister committed himself tonight to allowing business on that day to run for at least six hours, but preferably as long as necessary, given that we shall be talking about not just clause 8 and amendments providing for a referendum, but all the new clauses and new schedules tabled by Members.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) elegantly referred to my final point: how the programme motion was created in the first place. Unfortunately, I agree with him that it is the basis for the Government's media grid for the next couple of weeks, which will provide Ministers with an opportunity to be at the Dispatch Box each day at a time of their choosing, and to talk about subjects of their choosing—and at the beginning of each day when we turn on the radio and listen to the "Today" programme there will no doubt be discussions about what is going on in the House that day, completely under the Government's control. I suspect that the Minister alluded to that when he talked about the motion being for the convenience of those outside the House. I would like to think that he was referring to our constituents, but I fear he was talking about our friends in the media.
	The motion is designed to support a Government news agenda, as my hon. Friend ably suggested. Understandably, the Government wish to be in control of events, but they are putting their desire to be in control ahead of the rights of Members to table amendments about matters of concern to them and their constituents. The House should support the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and vote against the Government motion.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who made a forthright speech.
	Article 1 of the Lisbon treaty sets three objectives. It states:
	"This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen."
	I am confident that the treaty will fulfil the first of those objectives—ever closer union—but I am not as confident as I would like to be about the second and third objectives on openness and decision making. We have not got off to a good start in being open and taking decisions as closely to the citizen as possible, not least in this House and in what Ministers have told Members about negotiations and the intergovernmental conference process to date.
	I was hoping that this motion—this much-trumpeted opportunity to give the issue the promised detailed, line-by-line consideration—would make up for that lack of openness. I appreciate that the Minister who will wind up the debate has styled himself—justifiably, I think—a straight-speaking sort of chap, and I believe that his colleague, the Minister for Europe, is that as well. However, it will take a lot of straight talking to convince me that the Government have been anywhere near open on these proceedings to date.
	It is important to go back to what took place before the IGC negotiations in June. On 7 June, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee. She more or less said that that was a waste of time because nothing was taking place. She even denied that there were any negotiations. She said:
	"There has been a process whereby Member States were occasionally invited to give some views. There have not been negotiations."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) pressed her on that, saying it was astonishing, and she replied:
	"I came here because you asked me to come and give evidence. If you had asked me whether there was very much I could tell you, I could have told you no before I came here."
	That was our then Foreign Secretary's opportunity to tell the House's Committee scrutinising Europe about what was taking place, and we did not find out very much at all.
	A fortnight later, as if by magic, a draft IGC mandate appeared and was circulated to Departments. It was circulated for some 48 hours before the then Prime Minister went into negotiations, in which time we are led to believe that all Departments saw the document and gave their comments on it. On 23 June, the negotiations were completed and an IGC mandate came into being. What is more, the very next month the Government produced a document stating,
	"The Reform Treaty strengthens the role of national Parliaments in EU decision-making."
	That was hardly borne out by what had taken place hitherto, and the European Scrutiny Committee was well justified in its conclusion, which was a little mild, if anything:
	"We were concerned at an early stage that the process which was leading up to the convening of an IGC was proving to be far from transparent."
	That was a masterly piece of understatement by the ESC, although of course it has a majority of members drawn from the Government side of the House.
	Against that background, it is natural for us to look for an opportunity to compensate for that lack of openness and to have full discussion in this House. However, what this motion offers has come as a disappointment, and it is very much in keeping with the Government's approach before the IGC negotiations, with a view to closing down discussion. I agree with the learned comments of Opposition Members with far more experience of procedure than me about the severe curtailing of the opportunity to subject this provision to line-by-line consideration.
	Let me give one example that was mentioned by Labour Members: immigration and asylum policy, which comes under the judicial and home affairs part of the debate. We have been given four and a half hours to debate the entire field of judicial and home affairs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was right to take the House through all the issues covered by that field. The part of the treaty dealing with judicial and home affairs consists of five articles; immigration and asylum is just one.
	Let us consider what would happen if we devoted a proportionate amount of time to each of those articles. The others are equally important. There are articles on co-operation between police forces, on co-operation in criminal matters, and on co-operation in civil judicial matters. If we gave an equal amount of time to immigration and asylum in the general debates, we would be debating that issue for 54 minutes. That would be 54 minutes to debate articles dealing with the whole range of policy and law on asylum, illegal immigration and co-operation between Governments. In that time, we would also be getting into the subject of legal migration, which the European Union is greatly interested in taking on board as one of its competencies.
	Moreover, we would have 18 minutes to move amendments on asylum and immigration. The asylum and immigration provisions in this Bill touch on all such matters that regularly come before this House. We spend hours debating asylum and immigration, because these are extremely important and fundamental issues that touch on the liberty of the individual and on control over our borders, yet we are supposed to amend a treaty that deals with those issues within a total of 18 minutes.
	The same is true of foreign and security policy, the important changes to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks took the House through. For example, changes in majority voting arrangements will affect our ability to have an independent foreign policy. There is the highly significant creation of a new diplomatic service for the EU, and the creation of a new Foreign Minister. Apparently, the Government are now saying that all such matters will be decided on after we have debated the issues before us. We should be debating them on the Floor of the House.
	The most important issues appear to have been compressed with others that, although important in themselves, are little changed by the treaty. Subjects as fundamental as foreign policy, immigration and asylum, and judicial and home affairs—including the very important question of the increased jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, let alone all the other matters that are dealt with in the treaty—are important, and if we do not have adequate time to debate them on the Floor of the House, frankly, we will be unable to look our constituents in the eye.
	Yes, a lot of constituents do write to me about Europe. They want to know what is happening there, and they are alarmed by some of the things that are going on; sometimes, they do not fully understand what is taking place. If we cannot look them in the eye and say, "Yes we debated those issues in the House of Commons as fully as we possibly could. We went through the legislation line by line and it was properly debated", what sort of opinion will they entertain about this House?

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who always brings balance and good sense to these debates.
	The treaty transfers crucial powers from this Parliament to the European Union. Although amendment (f) is imperfect, it is supremely superior to the Government motion. If we compare that motion with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), we see a number of problems with the Government's proposal. For instance, the Government seek to combine on the first day of debate—tomorrow—the issues of migration and asylum, and crime and justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has just spoken about that eloquently, so I shall not repeat what he said. I merely point out that he informed the House that that impossible task insults our very democracy.
	No specific allotted time is given to debate matters of important national concern, such as the transfer of powers on the common fisheries policy. In respect of that matter, article 3 of the consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
	"The Union shall...have exclusive competence".
	Fishing is an important issue, and we should be given an allotted day to debate it. The common fisheries policy has virtually destroyed our fishing industry. Under CFP rules fish conservation has been decimated, and more fish are thrown back dead or landed illegally than are landed legitimately. Britain provides three quarters of the fish stocks and two thirds of the waters but gets only one eighth of the fish by value. We should programme business to debate that matter on a specific day.
	The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) talked about the importance of debating transport—rail, air travel and space policy—and that should be given a specific dedicated debate. Employment and industrial relations issues should also be given specific allotted time, as should the charter of fundamental rights.
	As I have said, the Opposition amendment is far from ideal, but it is designed to recommend itself to the Government. I hope that they will examine it, accept the good sense that it contains and go through the Lobby with us to support it tonight. They should do so because it offers six additional days' debate on particularly important areas. It offers this House the opportunity to debate, in specifically allotted time, asylum and immigration separately from justice and crime matters. Given the importance that asylum and migration have for our constituents, we should examine them specifically. Those things put enormous pressure on our public services, infrastructure and housing, and deserve to be examined specifically on a separate allotted day.
	The amendment also offers a specific allotted day to discuss the economy, social security and public services, which are important matters, and another to discuss foreign policy. Given the changes that this constitution— that is what it is—forces on this country, and particularly the impact that an EU Foreign Minister will have on our foreign policy, we need a specific allotted day to debate that issue.
	The amendment also offers a specific day to discuss the new EU President and the EU's legal personality, and another to examine the structures of the European Union and the distribution of competences between the EU and member states. In particular, it offers a specific allotted day to debate the provisions concerning national Parliaments. That brings me to the subject of the referendum. My constituents, like every other Member's constituents, were promised a referendum on the constitution by the three main parties. This is the constitution, and we deserve and we need a referendum on it. It is a matter of trust. The Labour party will have to answer to those constituents when it presents its manifesto at the next election for the lies that it told in its manifesto in the last election.

Mark Francois: Today's debate essentially revolves around one question—whether the Prime Minister will keep his word and Parliament will be able to debate this treaty in any depth. As has clearly been shown by Member after Member, the Government programme for the Bill is just a parliamentary gesture and not what was promised to this House.
	First, we had the broken promise on the referendum, and now we have a broken promise on detailed scrutiny of this momentous Bill in this House. Ministers seem not to want to listen to anyone. The European Scrutiny Committee has reported that the treaty was negotiated in a way that could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national Parliaments. Now Ministers, through this motion, are setting out to marginalise Parliament all over again.
	The Government are losing the people's trust on so many issues, so what do they do on this critical issue? They effectively ignore the public, the trade unions, their own Back Benchers tonight and the Select Committee, and plough on regardless. That is borne out by the debate. Of the 15 contributions so far, only three have supported the Government and one of those was the Minister for Europe himself. I shall return to the subject of his contribution, but I wish to comment on the other contributions we have heard.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made another powerful contribution to the debate, as I am sure the whole House will agree. Among other things, he pointed out the absolute absurdity of attempting to debate the extremely complex provisions on criminal justice and home affairs that are embedded in the treaty in just one day. The very idea that we can debate 27 amendments on that subject in 90 minutes tomorrow evening is itself a farce.
	The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) was representative of the frustration felt among Labour Members about the way in which this is being handled. He directly criticised the Government's approach and he made the point that not enough time will be made available for Back Benchers' contributions. For his own reasons, he highlighted especially the charter of fundamental rights and criticised the Government for failing to mention it in their motion—something that we attempt to rectify in our amendment.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who surprised the House twice over—first, because he spoke for less than half an hour, and secondly, because he said that the Liberal Democrats would vote against the Government tonight. That is a welcome change with regard to this treaty. He also said, generously, that his party would support our amendment. He made the case for the importance of detailed scrutiny of the Bill, and we look forward to enjoying his support in the Lobby tonight.
	We then heard from the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who accused us of nitpicking over procedure. That seems to be at variance with the Prime Minister's promise that the House would be allowed to debate the treaty line by line and in detail. I ask her and her colleagues who support the Government whether they want the House to debate the treaty in detail or not.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who brought his considerable experience in the House to bear on the debate. He pointed out, wisely, that the Prime Minister's pledge to put Parliament back at the centre of our national life is completely at odds with the motion before the House. He was followed by the redoubtable hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who asked a crucial question: whom does the business motion most benefit? She powerfully answered her own question—it benefits the Government, and not the House.
	We then heard a passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who pointed out to the Government that Parliament's standing in the eyes of the public can only be undermined by initiatives such as the Bill, and I entirely agree. We then heard from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who said that timing was more important than time. That is an interesting observation, given that a major leak from the Slovenian presidency today revealed that there are about 30 unanswered questions on how the treaty will work in practice; that is embarrassing timing for the Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out that the motion was designed more from the point of view of news management than for the convenience of the House, and I entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) gave us an historical tour d'horizon of English and British law. He memorably described the Government's position as a fetid sludge. I have a funny feeling that we will hear from him again once or twice as the debates continue. I may be wrong, but I would encourage the House not to bet against me.
	We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who rightly mentioned his long service in the House, and who referred to, among other things, the weaknesses in the Government's red lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) doggedly challenged the Minister on the lack of protected time on the day when we debate the referendum, and got a concession out of him; I shall return to that point later. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made an important point that reinforced what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, said about the severe lack of time in which to discuss the key provisions on criminal justice and home affairs. My parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), rounded off the Back Benchers' contributions by reminding the Government of their pledge on the referendum, among other things.
	I now come back to the Minister's contribution. He was courteous to take so many interventions, but despite his courtesy he completely failed to convince the House of his argument. He gave a commitment that on the day we debate the referendum, the business will be protected. That commitment was not in the Government's motion, and we therefore welcome it. On timetabling, he said that the Government would be flexible and would look at matters almost on a daily basis. Given that we begin debating the treaty in detail tomorrow, if he really wants to be flexible on a daily basis, the best thing that he can do is withdraw the Government's motion tonight.
	The Minister really got into trouble over Standing Order No. 24. After frequent interventions and points of order, it was eventually established that if the Government's motion is passed tonight, and if an emergency occurs on a day when the House is debating the treaty of Lisbon as set down in the programme, the decision on whether to have a debate under Standing Order No. 24 will effectively rest with the Government and not with you, Mr. Speaker. That is a considerable change to our established procedures. It took a long while to wangle that from the Minister, but eventually he admitted it, and that is another reason to vote against the motion.

Geoff Hoon: indicated dissent.

Mark Francois: The Chief Whip shakes his head; he should read the ruling given by Mr. Deputy Speaker in  Hansard tomorrow. The matter does not rest there. The Government's case for avoiding a referendum rests largely on providing "detailed parliamentary scrutiny" , as they put it, of the Lisbon treaty in the House, but the Minister completely failed to justify the abandonment of the referendum pledge, on which almost every Member to the House was elected.
	The marginalisation of Parliament is even more disturbing given the leak of a confidential Slovenian EU presidency strategy paper today. It sets out a raft of areas in which the detail of what the treaty will mean in practice has yet to be decided. That applies to decisions on the exact role of the new EU President and the high representative and; on the powers of Eurojust and Europol, and to the exact meaning of the solidarity clause should an EU member be subject to a terrorist attack. Those are the very areas that Parliament should wish to scrutinise, yet the process in which the Government have collaborated is designed to avoid exactly that scrutiny. How can the House question the details of the role of the new EU President, if those details are still being worked out? Effectively, as the think-tank, Open Europe, has argued, we are being asked to trust the Government to sign a blank cheque. I do not think that we should sign it.
	On one level, the Government have already lost the argument about the treaty. Almost every impartial observer has concluded that in substance it is essentially the same as the EU constitution, and that it will mean a substantial increase in the EU's powers. The programme motion is an admission of the extent of the Government's defeat. It cuts time for debate on matters of genuine importance in the treaty—justice and home affairs; the EU President; the EU Foreign Minister; the EU's new legal status; changes to defence arrangements; and the profound changes to the treaties—to a minimum. Instead, it ekes out time for talk about other subjects, some of which are important in their own right but to which the treaty makes very little difference at all.
	Ministers are behaving rather like a student who, when asked a question to which he does not know the answer, gives an answer to a completely different query. That is the level to which the Government have sunk: jester politics in place of the detailed debate that they promised us all along. Our amendment to the motion would give the House the bare minimum of debate that the Bill merits. It would ensure that, as promised by the Government, there would be 20 days of debate in the Commons. Instead of the absurdity of trying to discuss the vast and far-reaching changes in justice and home affairs in one day, we would have at least two days to do so. Let us remember that the Government's position is that the establishment of a common EU asylum policy and a common EU immigration policy by treaty does not even merit a day's debate in itself, which is indefensible.
	The amendment would allow greater consideration of the major changes that the treaty will make in foreign and defence policy, including the role of the EU Foreign Minister, the diplomatic service, the loss of vetoes in foreign affairs, and the creation for the first time of a common European defence policy. Those issues surely merit more than one day's debate. The amendment would provide two days to consider the profound legal changes that the treaty effects such as the granting to the EU of its own legal personality; the abolition of the intergovernmental status of criminal justice; and the declaration on the primacy of EU law. The amendment would allow some debate on the distribution of powers between EU and member states brought about by the treaty, yet the Government, according to the motion, think that such discussion is completely unnecessary, even though the treaty, for the first time, lists the EU's areas of competence and their nature.
	The amendment would ensure, too, that the charter of fundamental rights and the British protocol pertaining to it are debated, whereas Ministers, who are already very sensitive on this issue, clearly did not want the charter even to be mentioned in the programme for debate. The amendment would allow some discussion of the treaty's effects on national Parliaments. The European Scrutiny Committee has repeatedly drawn attention to the obligations that the treaty places on the House, but Ministers seem to think that there should not be any debate about that, either.
	Our amendment rectifies a basic structural flaw in the Government's programme. One and a half hours to debate amendments is practically unworkable. It prevents detailed discussion of the treaty, and as anyone remotely familiar with European treaties knows, the details matter. In our view, 20 days is not enough to do justice to the treaty. A case could easily be made for more debate and, as confirmed by the House of Commons Library, Maastricht, by comparison, was debated for 29 days. The programme motion, however, offers less than half that time. We have sought to allow the House to vote for a programme that simply holds the Government to their original word. The amendment would not wreck the Bill; it would simply allow the House to do the job that the Government promised that it would do in the first place.
	The whole story of the treaty is shabby: it was cooked up behind closed doors; it was rammed through to avoid public debate, with almost any deal being struck to evade the people's verdict in a referendum; and it was signed in circumstances of considerable national embarrassment.
	The Government know that they are losing the argument. To take one recent example, this week's Charlemagne column in  The Economist stated:
	"The British Government is accused of breaking its word by rejecting a referendum. That too is true. Even Europhiles wince as Ministers struggle to justify their about turn."
	The Minister was certainly struggling earlier, when he did not justify the Government motion to the House. The Government's programme motion represents a further betrayal of the people and of this House as well. We should deal with the treaty with proper thoroughness in accordance with the promise that the Prime Minister made to this House and to the people who sent us here. That is what we propose to the House tonight.

Kim Howells: The Lisbon treaty is the fifth such treaty since the United Kingdom's entry into the EU in 1973. It is good that procedures for scrutiny evolved and improved with each of those treaties. In the past, Governments of all complexions sought to use guillotine motions to organise discussions on Bills to implement EU treaties, if necessary.
	Today's business motion sets out a programme for debate on the Lisbon treaty that will ensure structure and balance. I have heard what hon. Members have said about the lack of time and the bids for more time to debate amendments and themes, and I have a great deal of sympathy for such bids and arguments. One is tempted to say, "God save us from experiments and innovations when it comes to the proceedings of this House." I have been here long enough to know that, but I also know that the more straightforward business motion for the Nice treaty was adopted without debate. Today's motion represents a significant innovation in procedure, and it is good that we have the opportunity to debate it fully.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the scope and nature of the Lisbon treaty on Second Reading, when he made it clear that it will improve the way in which the EU works. It will adapt the EU's institutions to a Union of 27; it will ensure that the voices of Europe's nations are heard more loudly in foreign policy; it will bring national Parliaments into day-to-day EU decision making to strengthen subsidiarity; and it will focus the EU on the big external challenges, such as climate change and migration.
	If the treaty is unique, then it is in this regard: it marks the end of the long process of institutional reform—if the treaty is ratified around Europe, then that process is well and truly over. It will make valuable changes, and it will turn Europe from institutional reform to the real priorities of its citizens. We need to reflect that balance in our discussions in this House, which is something that the programme motion provides.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: I am sorry, but I have very little time.
	It is obvious from this evening's debate that hon. Members judge that certain clauses will require more time and in-depth scrutiny than others. Rightly, clause 2 will be the focus of our attention in Committee, but given that it introduces the Lisbon treaty almost in its entirety, it is important that there is a clear structure in place to help the Committee to debate the content of the treaty as efficiently and effectively as possible. There will be two days of debate on clauses 3 to 7, which will include discussion of the passerelles. Time will also be devoted entirely to discussing amendments to the Bill. Furthermore, a full day will be set aside to discuss clause 8, as requested by the Select Committees.
	It is time for the so-called themed debates on substantive motions to be understood as the innovation that they are. It is established practice when a Bill is in Committee or on Report to group amendments by theme. The motion provides a more structured and themed approach to the Committee stage. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made clear in his opening statement, it is important that, as with amending treaties, thorough scrutiny of the legislation is conducted by debate in Parliament, not by referendum.
	There is an important case to be made: the Lisbon treaty is good for Britain and good for the British people. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained on Second Reading, the debate on Europe should move from institutional reform to delivery. The Government's structured approach to the Committee stage will enable the House to debate both the provisions of the treaty and the Bill. The structure of the Bill is one of the reasons why that is important. However, far more important is the wish to widen and deepen debate.
	The new, so-called themed structure should make the process of scrutinising the Lisbon treaty much more open and accessible to the whole House. Some of the previous Bill proceedings have had the opposite effect and confused and discouraged rather than shed light and encouraged understanding and participation. The themed structure is good, and interventions by Members today have not convinced me otherwise.

Patrick Cormack: The Minister has listened to most of this debate. Surely he has gathered that there is an overwhelming feeling on both sides of the House that we should at the very least go to the three hour/three hour structure proposed in the amendment, rather than stick with the four and a half hour/one and a half hour structure. Will he meet us on that?

Kim Howells: There is room for flexibility on the balance of time in each of the debates; I certainly would not deny the hon. Gentleman the justice of that. It is possible, and I shall try to explain how it might come about.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) quoted "Erskine May" at length. Long ago, Governments began to evolve programmes of business in response to public need and, increasingly, to democratic pressure. As the process developed, questions of balance between business and time—the commonplace of modern procedure—became acute as never before. Thomas Erskine May's fertile, if cautious, procedural imagination was there to help him to find solutions. He said that organisation was not less essential in a senate than in a factory. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who quoted May at great length, will agree that he should come to terms with that piece of wisdom.

William Cash: I concluded my remarks on that matter by quoting from the current edition of "Erskine May"; there was no departure on the fundamental principles of government by discussion.

Kim Howells: We could talk at great length about the editions of "Erskine May", but I have just quoted the hon. Gentleman a bit of it.
	Some right hon. and hon. Members have said that only amendments should be taken, but that would hinder the consideration of the treaty. The Bill is short and general; amendments cannot target treaty innovations adequately. We are concerned that we should scrutinise the treaty as well as the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe began to describe the flexibility that was mentioned a little earlier. Paragraph (6) of the motion gives the House the flexibility to alter the balance between themed debate and amendments, and between different days. Until as late as the rising of the House on the sitting day before an allotted day, the Government will be able to respond to requests to allow more time on themed debates or more time on amendments.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No, I will not.
	The response would take the form of a motion amending the business motion—specifically, amending the table. Provided that that amendment did not reduce the overall time for debate on the treaty of Lisbon, the question would be put forthwith, and would therefore not disrupt business unduly.
	The supplementary business motion amending the table to the business motion can be taken under paragraph (6) of the business motion. As I said, if it does not reduce overall time, it can be tabled as late as the night before the relevant allotted day.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No, I will not.
	Hon. Members asked about the provision in paragraph (4) of the business of the House motion, which prevents an emergency debate from taking place on the day allotted to the treaty until after the conclusion of proceedings on the treaty. They complained that that was a novel way of proceeding that takes the initiative in the matter of emergency debates away from the Speaker, but that is not true. This is not a new provision in substance at all.
	The existing provisions for programme motions under Standing Order 83I(4) already provide for delaying emergency debates until after the end of programmed business. Paragraph (4) of the motion simply replicates that for the proceedings on the treaty. The only reason that the motion had to make express provision for this instead of simply applying Standing Order 83I(4) is that when the House agreed to the present sessional experiment changing the arrangements for emergency debates under Standing Order 24, it failed to make the necessary consequential amendments to Standing Order 83I(4). Paragraph (4) of the motion therefore makes the necessary provision to make the existing procedure for programmed business work for proceedings on the treaty.
	Of course, if some extreme emergency arose so that the House desperately wanted to abandon business on the treaty for the day and proceed to the emergency debate, it would be open to the House to conclude the day's proceedings on the treaty very fast and get on to the emergency debate. In those circumstances, the Government would consider—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Kim Howells: I am not giving way.
	In those circumstances, the Government would consider tabling a supplemental business of the House motion for the following day to restore the amount of time lost from consideration of the treaty.
	Right hon. and hon. Members asked about protection of time on days 9 to 11. It is true that, as drafted, the motion does not guarantee any particular number of hours of debate on any of those days. The length of debate will be determined by the moment of interruption in the normal way. Given that we are allowing three days for debate on clauses 3 to 8, the House may think that this is sufficient. If it turns out—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Kim Howells: Conservative Members were very keen to know the answers to these questions because of course they are obsessed with themselves.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman can keep on but I will not give way.
	If it turns out that there are no statements on those three days and if decisions have been made about guaranteeing six hours, then of course the debate will start at 3.30 pm and end at 9.30 pm, not at 10 o'clock. There would be no point in the amendment whatsoever; it shows that hon. Members have not read the motion properly.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No, I will not—the hon. Gentleman must be deaf.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) alleged that there is not enough time to debate the substantive issues in the treaty. He backed that up with a raft of allegations and familiar scare stories—we have heard it all before. Let me take just a few examples. In relation to justice and home affairs, he said that the treaty will give Eurojust the right to launch prosecutions in this country. That is completely wrong—it will not have the power to initiate prosecutions. Eurojust is not a threat. In June, the Home Affairs Committee concluded in a report:
	"Eurojust provides an excellent example of what can be done to build mutual trust between practitioners and through them Member States in one another's systems. This kind of contact and practical co-operation is absolutely critical in enhancing trust and co-operation."
	But the right hon. Gentleman never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. He also alleged that we do not support the creation of a European public prosecutor. That is absolutely right—we do not. That is why we have ensured that we have retained unanimity, with a UK veto, on the creation of a European public prosecutor. If a smaller group of countries wishes to go ahead with that idea, it will not affect the United Kingdom unless we choose to opt in.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No.
	As has been pointed out, the United Kingdom has a legally binding opt-in in every area of justice and home affairs. Therefore, we will participate in a justice and home affairs measure only if we choose to. That is why there is no ratchet in JHA matters. We will opt in only if it is in the UK's interest to do so. I very much commend this motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 243.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the following provisions shall have effect.
	(1) In this Order, 'allotted day' means a day on which the first business is—
	(a) a motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown to approve the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of specified matters,
	(b) proceedings on the European Union (Amendment) Bill, or
	(c) a motion to vary or supplement this Order.
	(2) On an allotted day proceedings shall be taken in accordance with the Table.
	(3) Standing Orders Nos. 83D and 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings) and 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provisions) shall apply to proceedings to which this Order applies as if they were subject to a programme order.
	(4) On an allotted day no debate under S.O. No. 24 (emergency debates) may take place until after the conclusion of proceedings specified in the Table.
	(5) The rule of the House against anticipation shall not apply to proceedings specified in the Table.
	(6) If a Minister of the Crown moves a motion to vary or supplement this Order (including, in particular, so as to make provision about Lords Messages)—
	(a) if the amendment does not reduce the amount of time allotted overall to consideration of matters connected with the Treaty of Lisbon, the Question shall be put forthwith, and
	(b) otherwise, proceedings on the motion shall be brought to a conclusion not later than three-quarters of an hour after commencement.
	TABLE
	
		
			  Allotted  Day  Proceedings  Latest time for conclusion 
			 1 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the following matters: fighting cross-border crime; justice; policing; human trafficking; and asylum and migration policy.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill: any selected amendments to Clause 1 and the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill; any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 2 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to energy. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 3 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning human rights.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to human rights. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 4 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the single market. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 5 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning foreign, security and defence policy.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to foreign, security and defence policy. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 6 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning international development.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to international development. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 7 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to the matters specified in paragraph (A). 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 8 (A) Motion — 'That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning climate change.' 4&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 (B) Committee on the Bill — any selected amendments to Clause 2 relating to climate change, remaining amendments on Clause 2 and the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. 1&frac12; hours after commencement 
			 9 Committee on the Bill — Clauses 3 to 7.  
			 10 Committee on the Bill — Clauses 3 to 7, so far as not completed on Allotted Day 9.  
			 11 Committee on the Bill — Clauses 8, the Schedule, New Clauses and New Schedules. The moment of interruption 
			 12 Remaining proceedings on the Bill. 6 hours after commencement

COMMITTEES

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put motions 3, 4 and 5 together.
	 Ordered,

Children, Schools and Families

That Stephen Williams be discharged from the Children, Schools and Families Committee and Paul Holmes be added.

Public Accounts

That Annette Brooke be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Paul Burstow be added.

Scottish Affairs

That Danny Alexander be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. Alistair Carmichael be added.— [Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Immigration (Adela Mahoro Mugabo)

John Leech: As the local Member of Parliament of Adela Mahoro Mugabo, I wish to submit the petition of the Mahoro Must Stay Campaign. It contains 1,000 signatures, although a further 1,000 have been collected since the petition was handed to me a few days ago. I am delighted to support it.
	The Petition of the Mahoro Must Stay Campaign,
	Declares that Adela Mahoro Mugabo, who is to be removed to Rwanda, is the widow of a man murdered in 2002 by the Interharamwe Hutus, and as a Hutu herself was accused by the Rwandan Military Intelligence of covering up for her husband's murderers. The Petitioners further declare that Mahoro was tortured and raped, and is now HIV-positive, and that if she is returned to Rwanda she will still be in danger and will be unable to get the anti-retroviral drugs she needs to survive.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Home Secretary to instruct a reconsideration of the Home Office decision and allow Adela Mahoro Mugabo to stay in the UK, a safe environment in which she will be able to lead a healthy life.
	[P000114]

LEBANON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Khan.]

Andrew Love: Presidential elections in Lebanon have been postponed for the 13th time. The country has been without a president since 23 November last year, and the next possible date for Parliament to meet is 11 February. That means more than 11 weeks of failure to agree on a way forward, and political paralysis. It is, by common consent, the worst political crisis since the civil war in the country ended in 1990. It also has the potential to spill on to the streets of Lebanon, with unknown consequences for the country and, perhaps more important, for the wider middle east.
	That is not a fanciful statement. We can confirm our worst fears by noting recent events. Yesterday eight opposition supporters were shot dead in street protests in Beirut. Accusations abound: some say that the army bears responsibility, and there is also talk of "unknown gunmen". Amal, the political party representing the protesters, says that it is not yet clear who is responsible, but the situation remains very tense. I know that troops are on the alert for any further violence, although I understand that calm has returned to the streets of the capital to some extent.
	As if that were not enough, last Friday a senior police officer who was involved in investigations of recent assassinations was himself assassinated, along with three others, two of them totally innocent civilians. In the past three years there have been 30 bombings in Lebanon. Since UNIFIL—the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which is supposed to be patrolling the southern border—arrived in the country in September last year, there have been three attacks on its forces and six soldiers have died. A car bomb recently struck a United States embassy vehicle. Although, fortunately, no one from the embassy was injured, three innocent bystanders were killed. On the eve of President Bush's visit to the region earlier this month, two rockets were fired from Lebanon into northern Israel. While there is confusion over whether Hezbollah or one of the Palestinian parties was responsible, it will be ominous if that is repeated, and even more ominous if we see an increase in the number of rockets going into Israel.
	In the past two years, four Government Members of Parliament have been assassinated, and during that time no one has been arrested or charged with any of the crimes. Since the period of instability began, opposition supporters have blockaded the Parliament and launched regular demonstrations in the capital. Indeed, yesterday's events began as a demonstration against power cuts in southern Beirut. There was a transport strike last week and there are, of course, constant threats of civil disobedience and a campaign to follow.
	Sadly, early hopes that the Taif agreement introducing the confessional system of politics and how Parliament operates would deliver strength and stability in the country have been dashed. The reasons for that go back a long way—many complex issues are involved—but the reality is that we can see in more recent events how the spiral towards conflict has happened. In 2004, the Syrian authorities rammed through an extension to ex-President Lahoud's term of office, causing great consternation. In 2005, Prime Minister Hariri was assassinated, which further—and intensively—polarised the country. That led to a popular backlash. Elections following his assassination brought in the 14 March coalition and led to Syria's withdrawal, but the hopes at that time for a fresh start and a new initiative were dashed in 2006 with the invasion of Israeli troops.
	It is estimated that 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis died during that invasion. Unfortunately, Hezbollah, which was the cause of the instability in southern Lebanon, was able to claim victory as the defender of Lebanon. That enhanced not only its position in the wider middle east but its role in Lebanon.
	That enhanced role following the invasion led to Opposition demands for a blocking majority in the Government of Lebanon. That was not possible; indeed, it should not be possible, and we must stand up for the right of the Government to govern. However, the consequence of not agreeing that was the withdrawal of the Opposition, and political paralysis has followed.
	The prospects of avoiding further instability are bleak. Prime Minister Siniora, who has led the Government during the recent period, stated a few days ago that Lebanon is going through the most difficult and dangerous of times. That is saying something for a country with Lebanon's history. I do not think it is going too far to say that civil conflict remains a genuine possibility. The question I pose tonight is: what can Parliament, and more importantly the Government, do to help? International pressure to resolve the instability is crucial—pressure to keep up the dialogue, and to keep insisting that the parties to that dialogue be prepared to compromise to find a solution.
	The United Kingdom is well placed to assert such pressure. We play a prominent role in both the European Union, which should be doing more, and, perhaps more importantly, the United Nations Security Council. The UK has a unique experience in the middle east, and although it might be surprising to some, on the basis of my experience it is clear that the UK has prestige in Lebanon, even now after the Israeli invasion, which can be brought to bear.
	Ministerial visits are always welcome in Lebanon as showing a commitment to that country and to finding a way forward. The Prime Minister's representative, Michael Williams, has recently visited, as has the Minister, and it is important that we carry on doing so. It would show solidarity and help to keep up the pressure if Ministers were able to visit over the next few weeks.
	I understand that Prime Minister Siniora has requested the opportunity to come to the United Kingdom to report on the situation. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that request and expedite such a visit. I know that Prime Minister Siniora wants to keep the UK in touch with what is going on in his country, and to elicit its support to help ensure the quickest possible resolution of the conflict.
	There appears to be a developing consensus around the election of General Michel Suleiman as a possible next President; we have to build on that. Although the process has been difficult, it is critically important that there appears now to be cross-party support for that, and we need to do what we can to ensure that it leads to the rest of the package necessary to resolve the conflict. In my estimation, the mediation of the Arab League is a positive development in this regard. Although it has so far been unsuccessful—we understand the intensity of the differences between the political parties in the country—it is the only game in town at present. If we are to find a way forward, we need to get behind the work that the Arab League is doing not only in finding that presidential candidate, but in leading toward a Cabinet of national unity that can take the country forward.
	I hope that the Minister is alert to the need for United Kingdom support in finding a solution in Lebanon. I hope, too, that he is giving every assistance to the process that will need to be gone through—the hard negotiations that will have to take place—to deliver a solution in Lebanon. However, through his contacts in the United Nations and the European Union, and through the very good relationship that I know exists with the French authorities, who have played such a prominent role in the country, he must be aware of what is happening and what more can be done.
	That is the essential question that Parliament wants to ask: given the concerns in the international community about the decline into conflict in Lebanon, what more can we do not only to resolve the situation in that difficult country, but to ensure that we do not see a developing conflagration in the wider middle east? Given the other negotiations going on in trying to develop a dialogue between the different parties, Lebanon really does not need to be a negative at this point. Will the Minister reassure us that everything is being done to help in that situation?

Kim Howells: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for raising the issue of Lebanon. We have shared in a number of debates in the past couple of weeks, and I know how passionately he feels not just about trying to stop the conflict, but about finding solutions to the frozen conflicts that have been going on for so long. I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the situation in Lebanon and on what the United Kingdom is doing to help.
	First, I am sure that the House will share my deep concern about the deteriorating security situation in Lebanon. As my hon. Friend told us, yesterday saw protests that left at least seven people dead. It is essential that all political leaders urge their supporters to remain calm and respect the rule of law. The UK is investing £600,000 to train and equip the Lebanese armed forces to help them maintain public order and security during civil disturbances, while respecting human rights and limiting the risks of escalating violence. I hope that the reports that my hon. Friend has heard are not true—I cannot believe that the Lebanese army is responsible for these deaths. It has acted incredibly responsibly over the past 12 months. We have teams on the ground in Beirut delivering the training to which I referred. We hope that this will have a direct effect on the Lebanese Government's ability to preserve law and order amid the current tense political environment.
	I also condemn utterly Friday's bomb attack in Beirut, which killed and injured several people, including Wissam Eid of the Lebanese internal security force. I express my sympathy and condolences to the families of those killed and injured. Captain Eid was involved in the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, and his death must not be allowed to derail that important investigation or the work for justice in that case. A stable and prosperous Lebanon is an important component of our wider objectives of preventing conflict in the middle east and combating the threat of international terrorism in the region and, indeed, in the United Kingdom. A peaceful Lebanon is also crucial for all the communities in Lebanon, be they Christian, Sunni or Shi'a. Resolving the current political crisis, combating extremism and supporting the Government of Lebanon in their efforts to promote security and stability are, and will remain, high priorities for the United Kingdom.
	I visited Lebanon last month to talk to political parties on both sides, to try to understand more closely the nature of the disagreements and to encourage the sides to work for a compromise. During my visit, I met politicians from the March 14 Government and the Opposition, and the head of the Lebanese armed forces, General Suleiman, who is the only candidate for President upon whom both sides can agree. I urged all parties involved to take advantage of the ongoing mediation efforts, and to work towards the election of a new President and the formulation of a functioning representative Government as soon as possible. I remain hopeful that a deal can be done, but it was clear from my discussions that a gulf of misunderstanding and mistrust lies between the sides. It is essential that all sides are able to overcome that in the interests of all communities in Lebanon.
	I also went to see what remains of the Nahr El Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon. The camp was devastated by three months of intensive fighting last summer between the Lebanese armed forces and the extremist group, Fatah al-Islam. The sight would have reminded you, Mr. Speaker, of pictures of Stalingrad after the huge battle in world war two. I had never seen such devastation. I saw terrible devastation after the Israel-Lebanese—or Israel-Hezbollah—war of a year last July. It was an extraordinary sight. As somebody said to me there, Fatah al-Islam is neither Fatah nor Islam, but it is a very dangerous group.
	The visit highlighted to me the suffering of those civilians caught up in the fighting—30,000 of them in that camp have been displaced—and, most of all, the bravery of the Lebanese army, which suffered the killing of more than 150 soldiers during the fighting last summer. We ought to remember that the country is awash with arms. When the so-called Fatah al-Islam went in there—we do not know where it came from; it could have been Syria, but it might have been other places—it did not have to take guns, cannon, grenades and rocket launchers, because those things were already there. They had been put there by Yasser Arafat's forces many years previously. Fatah al-Islam easily outgunned the Lebanese armed forces when they went to try to restore some degree of order to that area. It is a warning to all of us that this is an extraordinarily dangerous place. It is a tinderbox that could easily catch fire. Indeed, it remains a cause of deep concern, and it is an area in which the UK is looking to help.
	Palestinian refugee camps are also, of course, a breeding ground for extremists who seek to destabilise Lebanon and the wider region. I do not believe that those extremists have much support among the majority of Palestinians, or among the wider Lebanese population, but they are nevertheless seeking to strengthen the foothold they have among a small minority. We are working in camps at the grass roots level to counter that radicalisation. We are also working with the UN and the Government of Lebanon to counter the fundamental causes of the radicalisation by improving the physical, legal and economic conditions of the refugees, which are pretty appalling.
	If I may, I shall give the House a brief update on the current political situation in Lebanon and its implications for the country's security and stability. As my hon. Friend told us, President Lahoud's mandate expired on 23 November 2007. Since then Lebanon has been without a president. Parliamentary votes to elect a successor have been delayed 13 times. Both the governing March 14 coalition and the Opposition have agreed on General Suleiman as candidate for the presidency, but the Opposition coalition are insisting on a package deal, involving not only agreement on a president, but on the distribution of seats in a Cabinet in a new national unity Government. That raising of the stakes has made getting an agreement even more difficult.
	It is essential that both sides continue to work to resolve their differences free from outside obstruction and interference. In particular, we call on Syria to respect Lebanon's sovereignty and its independent democratic institutions, as stated in numerous UN Security Council resolutions. Syria's actions in Lebanon, and its unacceptable internal human rights record, highlight the regime's lack of respect for democratic norms. In past months, we have seen a worrying deterioration in the human rights situation in Syria, with activists being detained simply for holding a meeting calling for greater democratic rights. There are reports that those activists are now being held in poor conditions. The use of torture also remains a serious concern, and there are several reports of other suspects dying during interrogation. We call on Syria to address that situation urgently. The British embassy in Damascus, working with other EU missions, continues to press the Syrians to improve conditions in general, as well to raise individual cases of concern.
	The international community has a role in supporting Lebanese leaders to resolve the crisis. We have consistently supported efforts by France and the Arab League to help the Lebanese find a way out of the current impasse. My visit was aimed squarely at supporting those efforts, and at getting Lebanese leaders to take the necessary difficult decisions, in the interests of all the people of Lebanon. I remain firmly convinced that a deal is within reach, if the political will is there. We must continue to support and encourage those efforts.
	Most recently, the Arab League has led international efforts to promote a resolution. Arab League Foreign Ministers met on 5 January to discuss the situation and agree a plan of action. I pay tribute to Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary General, who subsequently visited Beirut in a renewed push. I hope that his initiative succeeds and I urge the Lebanese leaders to seize the opportunity that Amr Moussa's leadership provides.
	The UK is taking practical steps to encourage a resolution. We have been working closely with international partners, particularly with our partners on the UN Security Council and in the EU, to provide political support to mediation efforts. As well as my visit, the UK special representative to the middle east, Michael Williams—an experienced diplomat—visited Lebanon last year to help promote a resolution. Of course, the British ambassador in Beirut, Frances Guy—a very talented and dedicated ambassador—continues to meet the key political figures regularly. In addition, we hope that Prime Minister Siniora will visit London in the near future. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be an important visit.

Andrew Love: I am very heartened by what my hon. Friend has said so far. I hope that either the Prime Minister's representative or a Minister from the Foreign Office will be able to visit the area in the near future to show that solidarity. I understand that an application has been made on behalf of Prime Minister Siniora, and I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that it is expedited, so that we can show our solidarity with the Government of Lebanon.

Kim Howells: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I have great regard for Prime Minister Siniora, who is a very brave man. He has never flinched from the responsibilities of his post and we would very much like him to visit.
	I pay tribute to the peacekeepers of the United Nations interim force in Lebanon. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that some of them had died in attacks in the past six or seven months. They were cowardly attacks—there have been roadside bombs, and innocent bystanders have been killed. I am afraid that such attacks have been replicated in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a pattern to them, and it is very worrying.
	The British embassy in Beirut is monitoring the security situation closely, and advice to British citizens in the country is, of course, regularly updated. I know that my hon. Friend will pay tribute to the tremendous job done by our people in Lebanon, and to our armed forces for the job that they did in July 2006. They faced a huge exodus of British and other citizens from Lebanon, while bombs and rockets fell all around. They did an enormous job.
	Finally, I turn to the practical assistance that the UK is providing to the Government of Lebanon to help them in their efforts to promote security. First, we continue to work closely with the Lebanese Government to implement UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the conflict in 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah. Our focus is on working with the Lebanese to improve their border security and prevent the illegal flow of arms across the Syria-Lebanon border. To date we have invested £800,000 in training and equipment to improve Lebanon's border security. I went there to see it for myself. A good job is being done in the north of the country, but the terrain is very difficult. It is ideal terrain for smugglers; they smuggle not just guns but all kinds of matériel across the border.
	The special tribunal for Lebanon has the United Kingdom's strong support. Achieving a swift and just outcome to the investigation into the death of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri will be vital to demonstrate that acts of political violence in the middle east will not go unpunished. The United Kingdom co-sponsored Security Council resolution 1757, which brought into force the agreements necessary to establish the tribunal. We also committed $1 million to getting the special tribunal up and running. That underlines our commitment to promoting the rule of law in Lebanon.
	The United Kingdom will continue to work strenuously with international partners for a resolution of the current political crisis, as well as on the wider challenges that Lebanon faces. Of course, the Lebanese must ultimately take responsibility for resolving their political crisis, but it is crucial that Lebanon's international friends play a supportive role. Lebanon should not once again become a battlefield in which countries with opposing interests play out their differences, and fight their wars by proxy. It is not in the interests of Lebanon, its neighbours, or the region for the dangerous political vacuum there to drag on.
	Sensible compromise solutions to the political crisis have been proposed, most recently by the Arab League. Lebanon's political leaders should have the courage to make compromises and provide the country with the stability that it needs to address the pressing economic, security and institutional challenges that it faces.
	I am glad to have been able to respond to my hon. Friend's debate. I am sure that the subject will raise its head again many times in the House, but I hope that the circumstances in Lebanon will be less disastrous than they were in the past.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.